The Sandiganbayan Third Division has rejected former senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr.’s second request to remove Associate Justice Karl Miranda from his P92.8-million malversation case involving an alleged nonexistent flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan.
In a resolution dated Sept. 24 and released on Sept. 29, the anti-graft court ruled that Revilla failed to present clear and convincing evidence that Miranda had acted arbitrarily or demonstrated bias that would justify his inhibition. The court ordered Miranda to continue hearing the case.
Revilla had questioned Miranda’s participation partly because the justice’s brother, lawyer Buenaventura Miranda, represented former Public Works Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, who is a prosecution witness in the case. Revilla argued that this relationship raised concerns about the justice’s impartiality and that Miranda had relied heavily on Bernardo’s testimony.
The court rejected the argument, noting that Bernardo is a witness rather than a party to the case and that it was the prosecution, not Miranda’s brother, that presented him as a witness. The Sandiganbayan also said there was no indication that Justice Miranda had any stake or interest in his brother’s law firm.
Revilla also cited Miranda’s separate opinion after the division granted him bail. Miranda had dissented from the decision, and Revilla argued that the justice’s assessment of the evidence suggested he had already formed a view of the case.
The Sandiganbayan said, however, that a dissenting opinion reflects a difference in judicial interpretation and evaluation of evidence. An adverse ruling or disagreement with the majority, by itself, does not establish personal bias or partiality.
Revilla further questioned remarks attributed to Miranda concerning the Good Conduct and Time Allowance Law, arguing that the comments appeared to assume the accused could face lengthy prison sentences.
The court said the remarks were not made with malice or bad faith, describing them instead as part of Miranda’s concern for persons deprived of liberty and his advocacy for restorative justice, prison reform and their rights.
This is the second time Revilla’s camp has sought Miranda’s inhibition. The first motion, filed in February, was also denied after the court found insufficient basis to establish bias or partiality.
Revilla’s malversation case centers on an alleged P92.8-million flood control project in Barangay Bunsuran, Pandi, Bulacan, which prosecutors allege was funded even though the supposed project was not actually constructed.
The latest ruling allows Miranda to remain part of the Third Division as the proceedings in the case continue.
