Ombudsman rejects Rama’s request to lift preventive suspension

Suspended Mayor Mike Rama during his backstage State of the City (BaSOCA) address on July 4. | CDN Photo/Pia Piquero

CEBU CITY, Philippines – The Office of the Ombudsman has rejected the requests filed on separate dates in May 2024 by preventively suspended Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama and other suspended city hall officials to revoke the order of their preventive suspension.

The resolution was issued by Ombudsman Samuel Martires on June 20 and delivered to media representatives on Sunday, July 21.

READ: Suspended Mayor Rama files motion for reinstatement with CA

On May 16, Collin Rosell, Francis May Jacaban, Angelique Cabugao, Jay-ar Pescante, Lester Joey Beniga and Nelyn Sanrojo (respondents and petitioners), through their lawyers, filed an “Urgent Motion for Rehearing to Settle or Cancel the Preventive Suspension Order.” On May 28, Rama and Maria Theresa Rosell filed a “Notice of Motion to Settle the Preventive Suspension Order.”

reasons

In their motion, the respondents set out their reasons for lifting the preventive suspension order, which were summarized in the Martires Resolution.

They initially argued that their right to information about the allegations and to a fair trial had been seriously violated.

Second, they claimed that the order was based solely on distorted information contained in the joint affidavit (dated February 23, 2024). This affidavit fails to mention that Rama filed separate petitions to the Central Office of the Civil Service Commission on January 8, 2024, within the deadline for reviewing the decisions of the CSC Regional Office No. 7 dated November 23 and December 11, 2023.

“Under Section 114 of the Administrative Case Rules, decisions of the CSCROs are immediately enforceable fifteen (15) days after their receipt unless a request for reconsideration or a petition for review is filed, in which case the enforcement of the decision shall be stayed. The respondents invoke the doctrine of primary jurisdiction which states that ‘where the adjudication of a case requires the expertise, special training and knowledge of the competent administrative authorities, relief must first be sought in an administrative proceeding before the courts can provide relief, even if the matter may well fall within their proper jurisdiction,'” reads part of the Ombudsman’s explanation of reasons.

“Thus, the reassignment orders remain valid precisely because there is as yet no final judgment ordering otherwise; the enforcement of the CSC judgment is still suspended pending the resolution of the above-mentioned review applications …”

The respondents also referred to cases in which the Court had ruled that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and not the Ombudsman was responsible for the reassignment of civil service employees.

In addition, the Memorandum of Agreement on Complaint Referral System dated 12 December 2016 between the Office of the Ombudsman and the CSC states that the Ombudsman will dismiss all complaints relating to personnel actions. Complaints against decisions or actions relating to personnel movements in the public service are covered by this agreement.

READ: Cebu City Mayor Mike Rama suspended for 6 months

Ombudsman suspends Cebu City mayor and seven others

“Suspension has become unnecessary”

The respondents further alleged that the salaries and benefits due to the plaintiffs were paid, processed and/or indexed accordingly.

“For example, the allowances/other compensation and other personnel benefits of plaintiff Filomena Atuel were paid on July 20, 2023, November 17, 2023, December 28, 2023 and December 29, 2023; and the charter day bonuses were paid to all plaintiffs in February 2024. Likewise, defendants and the City Government of Cebu City have made several efforts to release the other salaries and wages of the plaintiffs,” the discussion states.

The respondents argued that the preventive stay had become unnecessary since they had already filed their counter affidavits and supporting documents.

They claimed that the suspension no longer served its intended purpose of preventing them from hiding documents or influencing witnesses, and therefore the six-month suspension, which was intended to allow the investigation to proceed without their interference, was now redundant.

They also found that the complaint did not meet the two necessary requirements for imposing a preventive suspension. In addition, they argued that Rama would suffer significant and irreparable harm if the preventive suspension order was not lifted.

Applications were not convincing

Despite the respondents’ allegations, the Ombudsman considered that the evidence of their guilt was strong and found that the conditions for ordering preventive suspension were met.

The Ombudsman also found that the applications did not convince them otherwise. In addition, the Ombudsman found that the allegations involved serious issues such as dishonesty, oppression or serious misconduct.

The preventive suspension order was based on supporting documents attached to the joint affidavit dated February 23, 2024, and the respondents did not challenge those documents as inadmissible.

“The issuing of a preventive suspension order does not constitute a prejudgment of the facts of the case, nor does it constitute proof of the guilt of a public official, since such a determination can only be made after a main hearing.

“As regards the allegation that the respondents were denied their fundamental right to a fair trial, it is stressed that an interim injunction can be issued even before the hearing of the charges, as it does not have the character of a penalty but is merely a preparatory step in an administrative investigation,” the Ombudsman added.

Therefore, all applications submitted by Rama and the other suspended officials were rejected “for lack of merit” and “the preventive suspension order dated May 2, 2024 remains in effect.”

The Ombudsman decided to suspend Rama and seven other persons for six months as a precautionary measure following an administrative complaint filed by city hall employees Filomena Atuel, Maria Almicar Dionggzon, Sybil Ann Ybañez and Chito Dela Cerna.

The four questioned their transfers and the city administration’s refusal to pay their salaries for the next ten months. /with reporter Pia Piquero

/chlorenziana

Read more…