Rama applies for lifting of suspension

By: Pia Piquero – 4 mins ago

Suspended Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama. | CDN Photo/ Pia Piquero

CEBU CITY, Philippines – Suspended Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama and his legal team have filed a petition with the Office of the Ombudsman to lift the suspension against him and seven other city hall officials.

This came after the Court of Appeals (CA) denied their petition for certiorari with a “motion for preliminary injunction” on May 17, citing a lack of “substantive grounds.”

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

In a 44-page manifesto filed on May 28, the reasons for the request to lift the preventive suspension order were set out in detail.

According to the manifesto, the Ombudsman’s suspension order or the “impugned order” is based solely on the undisputed and distorted information contained in the complainants’ joint affidavit of 23 February.

The rally also said: “Mayor Rama and the voters of Cebu City will suffer grave and irreparable harm if the precautionary suspension order is not lifted in the meantime.”

On May 17, the CA’s Tenth Special Division released its decision, saying that the plaintiffs failed to first file a motion for reconsideration of the Office of the Ombudsman’s May 2 decision to provisionally suspend them.

READ:

Ombudsman suspends Bohol governor and 68 others over Chocolate Hills fiasco

“A motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to filing a petition for certiorari under section 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended. Although the Court has recognized exceptions to this requirement, petitioners have not shown in their petition a valid reason why they did not avail themselves of it before filing the present petition,” the decision states in part.

In addition, the CA stated that the “original transcript of the transaction receipts of the private courier service as evidence of the shipment of the petition are not attached to the petition.”

It stated that “the challenged OMB order attached to the petition is merely a photocopy.”

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

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 transfer 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…