Vice Mayor Raymond Alvin Garcia (left) and Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama (right) during the 2022 elections campaign. Photo from Mayor Mike Rama/Facebook
CEBU CITY, Philippines –Suspended Mayor Michael Rama seems to hold reservations regarding the current actions of the Cebu City government under the temporary supervision of Acting Mayor Raymond Alvin Garcia.
On June 7, after attending an online First Friday Mass, Rama and his legal team answered questions during an online conference. One of the questions was about his view on the current situation in Cebu City during his temporary suspension.
When questioned about Garcia, Rama said that he initially believed the Vice Mayor possessed a steady political compass and would not be politically disturbed by the current events in the city.
“I really thought [he has] a steady political compass, not politically disturbed… As if he is not my Vice Mayor,” Rama expressed.
Suspended Mayor Rama files motion for reconsideration to CA
Suspended Mayor Mike Rama stays with PDP
The suspended mayor further expressed his observation that the “greed for power” has come to dominate the Cebu City Hall. He remarked that despite being preventively suspended “maliciously,” his presence has been taken for granted.
Moreover, Rama expressed his hope to return to Cebu City as mayor as soon as possible. He stated that his legal team is exerting their best efforts to appeal against what he perceives as a malicious suspension.
He expressed confusion as to why people are assuming that he would be gone for six months, as he was just placed under preventive suspension.
“I am not punished… I am not penalized… I have in-depth knowledge about preventive suspension… I wish my lawyers [could explain] really what preventive suspension means,” Rama said.
Rama admitted he was affected by his preventive suspension, but remains positive about his current situation.
On June 4, Rama and two other suspended city hall officials, Collin Rosell and Maria Theresa Rosell, 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. /clorenciana