Suspended Mayor Rama files motion for reinstatement with CA

Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama during his speech at the prayer rally on Sunday, February 25. Screenshot/SMNI Facebook live

CEBU CITY, Philippines – Suspended Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama plans to continue appealing his case after he and two other suspended city hall officials filed a motion with the Court of Appeals (CA) for a retrial of their May 17, 2024 ruling.

The decision of 17 May rejected her application for leave to appeal challenging the legality of the precautionary suspension imposed by the Ombudsman’s Office.

READ MORE:

CA rejects petition for review filed by Cebu City Mayor Rama and seven others

Rama applies for lifting of the suspension imposed on him

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT: Rama’s suspension and why did the Ombudsman order it?

The formal Notice of Complaint with Declaration and Motion for Rehearing and Compliance filed by Attorney Joselito Baena with CDN Digital on Friday, June 7, stated that the plaintiffs, including Michael Rama, Collin Rosell and Maria Theresa Rosell, requested CA to issue a temporary restraining order against the Ombudsman’s contested order.

In the June 4 motion, Rama and his associates cited compelling reasons for filing a petition with the Ombudsman.

They argued that the preventive suspension order issued on May 8 was made public before it was served on them, which was a breach of procedural rules and did not inform them of the allegations against them.

“The said preventive suspension order was published and made known nationwide at about noon on May 8, 2024, before it was served and before a copy of the complaint was given and served on the plaintiffs. This violates the Rules of the Ombudsman for Administrative Matters and indicates a failure to obtain jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants, here the plaintiffs,” the discussion on ground number 9 states as follows.

Furthermore, Rama and his co-signatories expressed shock and disbelief when they learned of the suspension order, as they were not aware of any complaint against them.

“The applicants were deeply shocked and in disbelief when they heard about the preventive suspension order. None of them knew that any proceedings had been initiated against them personally or collectively. In other words, the applicants were clueless and virtually in the dark, their fundamental rights were being grossly disregarded,” the application states.

On 9 May, the complainants, through their lawyer, formally requested a certified copy of the preventive suspension order and other relevant documents from the Ombudsman’s Office, but their requests were not promptly processed despite the urgency expressed.

“On May 9, 2024, the applicants, through their counsel, formally requested a certified copy of the preventive suspension order from the Office of the Ombudsman, Central Office, along with all relevant documentation, including but not limited to the complaint and its supporting documents. For this purpose, an official request form was also completed (OMB Request Form 3), which was submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman along with the written request.”

“Such requests have never been processed promptly by the Ombudsman’s Office, despite the obvious and explicit urgency,” the motion states.

READ MORE:

Governor of Bohol and 68 others suspended for 6 months

Bohol government officials hold vigil for 69 suspended executives

On May 10, Maria Theresa C. Rosell, one of the plaintiffs, took matters into her own hands. She filed a written request for the certified copy of the preventive suspension order and the case files. Rosell personally traveled from Cebu City to the Office of the Ombudsman, Central Office, determined to obtain the necessary documents.

Upon arrival, she filled out OMB Request Form 3, indicating how urgently she needed the documents. However, her efforts stalled when she was told that the Ombudsman’s Office could not release the documents immediately, citing a need for a review before release could occur.

“Without copies of the complaint and related documents, it is impossible for the applicants to file a knowledgeable and intelligent application for retrial with the Office of the Ombudsman within the prescribed time limit of 10 days from the date of service of the order. Failure to file an application for retrial, as this Honourable Court observes, may be considered as a sign of a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman.”

In these circumstances, Rama and the other applicants have no choice but to seek a solution before the Court of Appeal.

“Therefore, on May 10, 2024, in the extreme urgency of the case, petitioners had no other option but to invoke the authority of this Honorable Court by filing a petition for leave to appeal under Section 65. Moreover, petitioners filed their petition electronically before the Honorable Court so as not to frustrate and alarm the citizens of the City of Cebu in terms of economy, stability, governance, projects, other urgent undertakings and general welfare,” the motion said.

Previously, the Ombudsman had decided to suspend Rama and seven other people 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.

The other defendants in the complaint were attorneys Collin Rossell, Maria Theresa Rossell, Francis May Jacaban, Angelique Cabugao, Jay-Ar Pescante, Lester Joey Beniga and Nelyn Sanrojo.

In an eight-page resolution, Ombudsman Samuel Martires stated that there were sufficient grounds to provisionally suspend Rama and the other defendants for, among other things, serious misconduct and conduct unbecoming a public official, as well as conduct detrimental to the interests of a national of the state.

According to Martires, there is “strong evidence” proving the guilt of those interviewed.

Read more…