Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama during his speech in the prayer rally on Sunday, Feb. 25. Screengrab/SMNI Facebook live
CEBU CITY, Philippines – Suspended Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama plans to continue to appeal his case after he and two other suspended city hall officials filed a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals (CA) regarding its May 17, 2024, ruling.
The May 17 ruling constituted a dismissal of their petition for certiorari, which challenged the legality of their preventive suspension imposed by the Office of the Ombudsman.
READ MORE:
CA dismisses petition for certiorari filed by Cebu City Mayor Rama, seven others
Rama files motion to lift suspension order against him
EXPLAINER: Rama suspension and why the Ombudsman ordered it?
In the Formal Entry of Appearance with Manifestation and Motion For Reconsideration and Compliance sent to CDN Digital on Friday, June 7, it was stated that Petitioner-Movants, including Michael Rama, Collin Rosell, and Maria Theresa Rosell, had petitioned CA for the issuance of a temporary restraining order against the challenged Ombudsman order.
In the motion dated June 4, Rama and his associates cited valid reasons for filing a petition before the Ombudsman.
They argued that the Preventive Suspension Order, issued on May 8, had been made public before it was served to them, violating procedural rules and depriving them of awareness about the allegations against them.
“The said Preventive Suspension Order was released and publicized nationwide about noontime on May 8, 2024 before it was served and before any copy of the complaint was furnished and served to the Petitioner-Movants. This is in violation of the Rules of the Ombudsman in Administrative Cases and indicative of the failure to acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents, Petitioner- Movants herein,” the discussion of grounds number 9 reads as follows.
Furthermore, Rama and his co-petitioners expressed shock and disbelief upon learning about the suspension order, as they were unaware of any filed cases against them.
“Petitioner-Movants were greatly shocked and in complete disbelief upon hearing about the Preventive Suspension Order. None of them were aware of any case filed against their persons individually or collectively. In other words, Petitioner-Movants were clueless and practically were in the dark, their fundamental rights grossly disregarded,” the motion stated.
On May 9, through their lawyer, the petitioners formally requested a Certified True Copy of the Preventive Suspension Order and other relevant documents from the Office of the Ombudsman, but their requests were not promptly addressed despite the urgency expressed.
“On May 9, 2024, Petitioner-Movants, through counsel, made an official request for a Certified True Copy of the Preventive Suspension Order before the Office of the Ombudsman, Central Office and all relevant records, including but not limited to the complaint and its supporting documents. An official request form was also filled out for the purpose (OMB Request Form 3) which was submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman together with the written request.”
“Such requests were never attended by the Office of the Ombudsman with dispatch despite obvious and expressed urgency,” the motion read.
READ MORE:
Bohol governor, 68 others suspended for 6 months
Bohol gov’t workers hold prayer vigil for 69 suspended execs
On May 10, Maria Theresa C. Rosell, one of the petitioners, took matters into her own hands. She made a separate written request for the Certified True Copy of the Preventive Suspension Order and the case records. 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 the OMB Request Form 3, indicating her urgency and need for the documents. However, her efforts hit a roadblock when she was informed that the Office of the Ombudsman could not release the documents immediately. They cited the need for verification before any release could be made.
“Without copies of the complaint and its supporting documents, Petitioner-Movants cannot possibly file an informed and intelligent Motion for Reconsideration before the Office of the Ombudsman within the reglementary period of 10 days from service of the Order. The non-filing of a motion for reconsideration, as observed by this Honorable Court, can then be taken as a badge of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman.”
Given these circumstances, Rama and the other petitioners find themselves with no recourse but to pursue resolution through the Court of Appeals (CA).
“Thus, on May 10, 2024, under extreme urgency, Petitioner-Movants had no other recourse but to invoke the authority of this Honorable Court through the filing of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. Moreover, Petitioner-Movants filed their Petition through electronic filing before the Honorable Court so as not to frustrate and disturb the constituents of the City of Cebu in terms of economy, stability, leadership, projects, other urgent undertakings, and the general welfare at large,” the motion stated.
Earlier, the Ombudsman decided to place Rama and seven others under preventive suspension for six months based on the administrative complaint that was lodged by City Hall employees Filomena Atuel, Maria Almicar Dionggzon, Sybil Ann Ybañez, and Chito Dela Cerna.
The four questioned their reassignments and the city government’s refusal to pay their salaries for 10 months.
The other respondents of the complaint were lawyer 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 said they found sufficient grounds to put Rama and the other respondents under preventive suspension for grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a public officer and conduct prejudicial to the best interest among others.
According to Martires, there was “strong evidence” to prove the guilt of the respondents.