Sandiganbayan rejects Revilla’s 2nd motion to inhibit presiding justice

MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan Third Division has denied the Second Motion for Inhibition filed by former Sen. Bong Revilla, which sought the voluntary recusal of the division's chairperson.

In a resolution dated September 24, the anti-graft court found Revilla’s motion to be without merit, ruling that Associate Justice Karl Miranda must proceed with his judicial duty to sit and hear the case.

In rejecting Revilla’s motion, the anti-graft court reiterated that there is no ground for mandatory inhibition under Section 11, Canon III of the 2025 Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability, which does not include a judge's relationship with the counsel of a party's witness.

While judges may voluntarily inhibit themselves for just and valid reasons, the court found that Revilla failed to present the clear and convincing evidence of arbitrariness required to prove bias or partiality.

“There must be clear and convincing evidence of acts or conduct clearly indicative of arbitrariness. In this regard, the court found that Revilla failed to demonstrate any arbitrary act or conduct that would warrant the recusal of Justice Miranda from participating in this case,” the Sandiganbayan’s resolution read.

Revilla reiterated concerns regarding Miranda’s brother, Buenaventura Miranda, who serves as counsel for former Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, a witness in his malversation case.

The former lawmaker argued that Miranda and the Chavez Miranda Aseoche Law Offices (CMA Law) assisted Bernardo during the preliminary investigation, during his appearances as a witness, and potentially with his application for admission to the Witness Protection Program (WPP).

Revilla also claimed that Miranda relied heavily on Bernardo's allegedly uncorroborated testimony when he issued a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, or "Separate Opinion," voting to deny Revilla's bail application.

Furthermore, Revilla pointed to an incident in February 2026, shortly before arraignment, where Justice Miranda allegedly approached the accused in the courtroom and encouraged them to look into the benefits of the Good Conduct and Time Allowance Law. Revilla argued that these remarks gave the impression that the judge had already prejudged the case and assumed the accused would face lengthy prison sentences.

Addressing the relationship between the Miranda brothers, the court emphasized that Bernardo is merely a witness, not a party to the case, and was presented by the prosecution rather than by the lawyer Miranda.

Regarding the participation of CMA Law and the attendance of lawyer Carl Mucho at the hearings, the court noted that Miranda is not part of and has no interest in CMA Law, nor is he related to Mucho.

The court also agreed with the prosecution that the authority to retain Bernardo in the WPP rests with the Department of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman, making Revilla's claims of bias on this front purely speculative.

The court also defended Miranda’s opinion on the bail application, noting that it was replete with citations of other witness testimonies and documentary evidence.

The anti-graft court emphasized that a dissent simply demonstrates a difference in judicial interpretation and that adverse rulings, without more, do not prove bias or partiality warranting inhibition.

With regard to the remarks on the GCTA Law, the anti-graft court ruled that these remarks were not born out of prejudice, but rather reflected Miranda’s long history as a staunch advocate for restorative justice, prison reform, and the rights of PDLs.

“The court then enumerated Justice Miranda's efforts to promote the rights and welfare of all PDLs, which included the following: (1) he has continuously coordinated with the Bureau of Corrections, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, as well as private persons and groups regarding assistance to and the plight of PDLs; (2) he taught at the college inside the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City; (3) he assisted in setting up E-DALAW facilities in various jail and correctional facilities; (4) he helped organized national competitions, exhibitions, and an auction for artworks made by PDLs; and (6) spoke on restorative justice and prison reform on various platform, including in a podcast of the Supreme Court where he also discussed good conduct time allowance in relation to prison reform and restorative justice.”

The anti-graft court added that advising the accused to know their legal rights is consistent with the court's duty to ensure due regard for the rights of the accused and cannot be equated with declaring a conviction.

“The court emphasized that advising the accused to know their legal rights cannot reasonably be equated with declaring that he will be convicted. If anything, providing information concerning a possible statutory benefit is consistent with the court's duty to ensure due regard to the rights of the accused,” the anti-graft court said.

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