Osmeña and Rama | CDN Digital file photo
CEBU CITY, Philippines — Former Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña’s filing a case of graft and corruption against Vice Mayor Michael “Mike” Rama has put to rest rumors that the old allies have been rekindling their political relations.
“Osmeña is my political opponent,” said Rama in an interview on Friday, December 13, 2019.
Rama denied that he met Osmeña in the last few months and said the last time he met the former mayor was in 2018.
Rama’s statement has put to rest reports about Rama allegedly meeting Osmeña three times in the past months, sparking rumors of a drift within the Barug-PDP Laban, the political party of the city’s current administration.
The rumors prompted the party to conduct regular meetings to address controversies.
Read: Osmeña to file raps against Rama for SRP lot sale
The vice mayor dismissed the rumors four days after the Osmeña filed graft and corruption cases against him for the 2015 sale of a 45-hectare lot property in the South Road Properties to the SM-Ayala Consortium during Rama’s term as mayor.
The vice mayor said he had not received a copy of the corruption case filed against him by Osmeña on Monday, December 9, 2019, but he said the case would most likely not take ground.
The case, he said, had been tackled multiple times in court, and both lower courts and appellate courts have affirmed the legality of the sale.
“The sale was done by big corporations, conglomerates. These companies would never do something, or enter into a contract, that is illegal and can put their investments at risk,” he said.
Read: Rama ready to face graft, corruption cases for SRP sale in 2015
The vice mayor said that he was ready to face the complaints of Osmeña and insisted that the contracts he signed as mayor were legal and that he had the legitimate power to do so. /dbs
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.
