Former Senator Ramon "Bong" Revilla Jr. has filed a second motion seeking the inhibition of Sandiganbayan Justice Karl B. Miranda from his ongoing malversation case, citing growing concerns over the magistrate's alleged partiality.

In a 13-page motion filed Monday, Revilla’s defense team argued that circumstances following the denial of their first inhibition plea in February have reinforced doubts about Miranda’s neutrality.

At the center of the motion is the justice’s relationship with Atty. Buenaventura B. Miranda of the Chavez Miranda Aseoche Law Offices.

Atty. Miranda is the brother of the Sandiganbayan magistrate and represents Roberto Bernardo, the prosecution’s principal witness and former undersecretary.

The defense contended that despite not being counsel of record in the criminal case, Atty. Miranda and CMA Law continued to assist Bernardo during proceedings.

The motion noted that a CMA Law lawyer, Carl Mucho, coordinated with prosecutors regarding Bernardo’s court attendance and accompanied him to hearings.

According to the defense, Bernardo serves as the prosecution's sole direct link to Revilla, making the legal assistance provided by the justice's brother a source of perceived bias.

"Without Usec. Bernardo’s testimony, there would be no case," the motion stated.

Revilla also pointed to Miranda’s dissenting opinion in the Third Division’s 31 July 2026 ruling that granted the former senator bail after finding the evidence of guilt was not strong.

The defense claimed the dissent heavily relied on Bernardo’s testimony without independent corroboration.

Additionally, the motion recalled an incident prior to Revilla’s arraignment in February 2026, when Miranda allegedly approached the accused in the courtroom and spoke about the potential benefits of the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) Law. Revilla argued the conversation created an unsettling impression that the magistrate had prematurely assumed he would be convicted.

While acknowledging that each circumstance taken individually might not prove bias, the defense argued that their combined effect warrants Miranda’s voluntary inhibition to preserve public confidence in the judiciary, invoking the Supreme Court principle that judges must remain impartial and independent.

The anti-graft court previously rejected Revilla’s first motion, ruling that Atty. Miranda was not a party or counsel of record in the criminal case and that his legal services to Bernardo occurred in a different forum.