No proof of bias: Sandigan denies Bong Revilla's motion to inhibit justice

Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!

Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.

Visit Suniway.ph to learn

February 11, 2026 | 5:39pm

MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan has denied the motion of former lawmaker Bong Revilla asking the court to have one of its justices inhibit in his graft and malversation case.

In a seven-page resolution dated February 10, the anti-graft court denied the motion for inhibition against Associate Justice Karl Miranda, which Revilla filed on February 8.

According to the Sandiganbayan, the former lawmaker's claim of impartiality is "speculative."

"Associate Justice Miranda's voluntary inhibition in this case is therefore unwarranted as Revilla failed to present any extrinsic evidence to establish the former's bias, bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose. Revilla's bare allegations of partiality and prejudgment will not suffice," the anti-graft court's ruling read.

The motion sought the voluntary inhibition of Miranda, citing his ties with lawyer Buenaventura Miranda, his brother. The latter is the lawyer of former Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearings.

According to Revilla, Miranda should recuse himself from the proceedings to "remove any lingering doubt about his impartiality."

However, the anti-graft court noted that Miranda's brother is neither a party nor a counsel in the present Sandiganbayan case.

"Atty. Miranda is neither a party nor a counsel to any of the parties in this case. Similarly, Usec. Bernardo is not a party to this case but is only listed as a witness in the information," the anti-graft court said.

"Should Usec. Bernardo be presented as a witness, it is also the prosecution, and not Atty. Miranda, who will be preparing his judicial affidavit and offering his testimony in court," it added.

The Sandiganbayan also pointed out that Miranda disclosed these relationships with his brother and one of Revilla's lawyers, Ramon Esguerra, as early as the issuance of commitment orders.

The anti-graft court ruled that none of the mandatory inhibition grounds under the 2025 Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability were present.

"In this case, Revilla failed to demonstrate any act or conduct that indicates Associate Justice Miranda's bias or partiality. Other than the imputation of 'lingering doubt' on Associate Justice Miranda's impartiality, Revilla failed to indicate any circumstance that Associate Justice Miranda exhibited bias and prejudice towards him," the anti-graft court said.

Revilla filed the motion days after the anti-graft court issued resolutions not granting his earlier motions to quash the arrest warrant and information against him.

This is over the malversation and graft case on the alleged anomalous P92.8 million flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan, which investigators from the Office of the Ombudsman said was non-existent.

Revilla, on February 9, refused to plead on the graft case, which prompted the Sandiganbayan to enter a not guilty plea for him.

Meanwhile, the arraignment for the malversation case against him was moved to February 16.