Sandiganbayan turns down Revilla’s 2nd movement to prevent administering justice

FIBA

MANILA, Philippines– The Sandiganbayan Third Division has actually rejected the Second Motion for Inhibition submitted by previous Sen. Bong Revilla, which looked for the voluntary recusal of the department’s chairperson.

In a resolution outdated September 24, the anti-graft court discovered Revilla’s movement to be without benefit, ruling that Associate Justice Karl Miranda need to continue with his judicial task to sit and hear the case.

In declining Revilla’s movement, the anti-graft court restated that there is no ground for obligatory inhibition under Section 11, Canon III of the 2025 Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability, which does not consist of a judge’s relationship with the counsel of a celebration’s witness.

While judges might willingly prevent themselves for simply and legitimate factors, the court discovered that Revilla stopped working to provide the clear and persuading proof of arbitrariness needed to show predisposition or partiality.

“There should be clear and persuading proof of acts or perform plainly a sign of arbitrariness. In this regard, the court discovered that Revilla stopped working to show any approximate act or perform that would call for the recusal of Justice Miranda from taking part in this case,” the Sandiganbayan’s resolution read.

Revilla repeated issues relating to Miranda’s bro, Buenaventura Miranda, who works as counsel for previous Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, a witness in his malversation case.

The previous legislator argued that Miranda and the Chavez Miranda Aseoche Law Offices (CMA Law) helped Bernardo throughout the initial examination, throughout his looks as a witness, and possibly with his application for admission to the Witness Protection Program (WPP).

Revilla likewise declared that Miranda relied greatly on Bernardo’s presumably uncorroborated statement when he released a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, or “Separate Opinion,” voting to reject Revilla’s bail application.

Revilla pointed to an occurrence in February 2026, quickly before arraignment, where Justice Miranda presumably approached the implicated in the courtroom and motivated them to look into the advantages of the Good Conduct and Time Allowance Law. Revilla argued that these remarks offered the impression that the judge had actually currently prejudged the case and presumed the implicated would deal with prolonged jail sentences.

Dealing with the relationship in between the Miranda siblings, the court highlighted that Bernardo is simply a witness, not a celebration to the case, and existed by the prosecution instead of by the legal representative Miranda.

Concerning the involvement of CMA Law and the participation of attorney Carl Mucho at the hearings, the court kept in mind that Miranda is not part of and has no interest in CMA Law, nor is he associated to Mucho.

The court likewise concurred with the prosecution that the authority to keep Bernardo in the WPP rests with the Department of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman, making Revilla’s claims of predisposition on this front simply speculative.

The court likewise protected Miranda’s viewpoint on the bail application, keeping in mind that it was loaded with citations of other witness statements and documentary proof.

The anti-graft court highlighted that a dissent merely shows a distinction in judicial analysis which negative judgments, without more, do not show predisposition or partiality warranting inhibition.

With regard to the remarks on the GCTA Law, the anti-graft court ruled that these remarks were not substantiated of bias, however rather showed Miranda’s long history as a strong supporter for corrective justice, jail reform, and the rights of PDLs.

“The court then mentioned Justice Miranda’s efforts to promote the rights and well-being of all PDLs, that included the following: (1) he has actually constantly collaborated with the Bureau of Corrections, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, along with personal individuals and groups concerning support to and the predicament of PDLs; (2) he taught at the college inside the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City; (3) he helped in establishing E-DALAW centers in numerous prison and reformatories; (4) he assisted arranged nationwide competitors, exhibits, and an auction for art work made by PDLs; and (6) spoke on corrective justice and jail reform on numerous platform, consisting of in a podcast of the Supreme Court where he likewise talked about excellent conduct time allowance in relation to jail reform and corrective justice.”

The anti-graft court included that recommending the implicated to understand their legal rights follows the court’s task to make sure due regard for the rights of the implicated and can not be related with stating a conviction.

“The court stressed that encouraging the implicated to understand their legal rights can not fairly be corresponded with stating that he will be founded guilty. Supplying info worrying a possible statutory advantage is constant with the court’s responsibility to guarantee due regard to the rights of the implicated,” the anti-graft court stated.

Revilla is being charged with malversation over the supposed anomalous P92.8-million flood control task in Pandi, Bulacan.