MANILA- Former Bureau of Immigration deputy commissioner Michael Robles has sought the inhibition of Sandiganbayan 6th Division Chairperson Sarah Jane Fernandez in his 4 cases in connection with the P50 million bribery scandal.

In the motion to inhibit filed by lawyer E. Hans Santos, it was noted that when Robles was posting bail for his 3 cases (graft, direct, bribery, giving and receiving gifts for public officials), he was “detained and deprived of liberty” apparently in connection with his plunder case.

“It bears no emphasis that no warrant of arrest was shown to the accused, hence, the deprivation of their liberty at that time was deemed illegal,” Santos said in the motion.

Robles and his co-accused in the 4 cases, former deputy commissioner Al Argosino, posted P60,000 bail each on April 10, 2018, the same day the resolution on probable cause for plunder came out.

The two, along with former police official Wally Sombero and businessman Jack Lam, are supposedly involved in the release of 1,300 Chinese nationals who were detained at the Fontana Leisure Parks and Casino in Pampanga.

• Sandigan orders ex-immigration officials accused of plunder detained

Justice Fernandez also asked lawyer Dennis Buenaventura, counsel for Argosino if he is planning to file a similar motion.

Buenaventura manifested his intention to file a similar pleading and was given a period of 5 days by the court.

In the motion to inhibit, it was also noted that Fernandez is the classmate of lawyer Laurence Arroyo, who is the counsel of accused Sombero.

“Should the accused be acquitted, the Hon. Justice Fernandez may be subject to suspicion of bias and partiality toward the accused. On the other hand, should the accused be convicted the Hon. Justice Fernandez may still be subject to suspicion that the accused were convicted just so she can dispel any suspicion of bias and partiality,” Santos said.

Other resolutions of Fernandez also indicated bias against Robles, said Santos.

He also cited Supreme Court decisions such as Mateo, Jr. vs. Villaluz, noting that “even the slightest doubt in the actions of the judge should leave the judge no choice but to inhibit himself voluntarily.”

The motion to inhibit was filed January 7, 2019, the day the court denied the motions for reconsideration of Robles and Argosino on the denial of the motions to dismiss the cases.