Former senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla exits the Sandiganbayan on Tuesday, January 20, 2026. Maria Tan, ABS-CBN News/File
MANILA — The Sandiganbayan Third Division denied former senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr.’s second plea seeking the voluntary inhibition of Associate Justice Karl Miranda from his ongoing malversation case involving an alleged ghost flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan, for lack of merit.
In a resolution dated Sept. 24, the anti-graft court ruled that there was no valid legal grounds for the voluntary inhibition of Miranda.
“Justice Miranda must therefore proceed with his duty to sit and hear the subject case,” the resolution read.
Revilla argued the magistrate is the brother of lawyer Buenaventura Miranda, the counsel for former public works undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, who is a witness in the case.
The defense claimed that Atty. Bernardo's legal counsel and law office could have coordinated with the prosecution and assisted in his admission to the Witness Protection Program.
Prosecutors ask Sandiganbayan justice to inhibit from Revilla malversation case
The former lawmaker also alleged Miranda's earlier dissenting opinion opposing his bail plea heavily relied on Bernardo's testimony.
Miranda was the sole justice who voted against granting Revilla bail.
Moreover, Revilla questioned alleged remarks made by Miranda in February which he argued gave the impression that the case had already been prejudged.
“Sometime in February 2026, shortly before arraignment, Justice Miranda went to see the accused in the courtroom and encouraged them to look into the benefits available under the Good Conduct and Time Allowance (GCTA) Law. He averred that Justice Miranda’s statements appeared to assume that the accused in this case would be penalized with lengthy periods of imprisonment,” it read.
However, the anti-graft court said "mere suspicion or imputation of bias or partiality” was not enough to warrant inhibition and that there should be clear and convincing evidence of acts or conduct clearly indicative of arbitrariness.
The court reiterated that Bernardo is a witness rather than a party to the case, and that it is the prosecution handling the presentation of witnesses.
The court also clarified that Miranda has no stake or interest in the law firm of his brother.
Miranda explained that his remarks regarding the Good Conduct and Time Allowance Law to persons deprived of liberty were contextualized by a premise: "If you are acquitted, well and good for you - but in the possibility that you might get convicted, it will be best to know your rights as PDLs and the benefits of the GCTA Law."
The court noted that Miranda’s comments came from his advocacy for restorative justice and prison reform rather than any personal prejudice.
It added that adverse rulings do not prove bias or partiality warranting inhibition.
“The court then underscored that absent clear and convincing evidence of a judge’s bias and partiality, the presumption that he will perform his duty of dispensing justice without fear or favor stands,” the court said.
Revilla’s first motion seeking Miranda’s inhibition was previously denied due to lack of merit.
Revilla posts P1-million bail for malversation case
Ombudsman: Revilla bail an 'eye opener' to fight harder in war vs corruption