Ombudsman denies Rama’s petition to lift preventive suspension

Suspended Mayor Mike Rama in his Backstage State of the City Address (BaSOCA) on July 4. | CDN Photo/ Pia Piquero

CEBU CITY, Philippines — The Office of the Ombudsman has denied the motions of preventively suspended Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama and other suspended City Hall officials to lift the order of their preventive suspension filed in separate dates in May 2024.

The resolution was issued by Ombudsman Samuel Martires dated June 20 and was received by the members of the media on Sunday, July 21.

READ: Suspended Mayor Rama files motion for reconsideration to CA

On May 16, Collin Rosell, Francis May Jacaban, Angelique Cabugao, Jay-ar Pescante, Lester Joey Beniga, and Nelyn Sanrojo (respondent-movants) submitted an ‘Urgent Motion for Reconsideration to Quash or Lift the Preventive Suspension Order’ through their lawyers. On May 28, Rama and Maria Theresa Rosell filed a ‘Manifestation with Motion to Lift the Preventive Suspension Order.’

Grounds

In their motion, the respondent-movants outlined their reasons for lifting the Preventive Suspension Order, which were summarized in the resolution by Martires.

They first argued that their rights to be informed of the accusations and to due process were severely violated.

Second, they claimed that the order is based solely on biased information from the Joint Complaint-Affidavit (dated February 23, 2024), which failed to mention that Rama had timely filed separate Petitions for Review with the Civil Service Commission-Central Office on January 8, 2024, regarding the CSC Regional Office No. 7 resolutions issued on November 23 and December 11, 2023.

“Under Section 114 of the Rules on Administrative Cases, decisions of the CSCROs shall be immediately executory after fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof, unless a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review is reasonably filed, in which case the execution of the decision shall be held in abeyance. Respondent-movants invoke the doctrine of primary jurisdiction which provides that ‘if the determination of a case requires the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies, relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy is supplied by the courts even if the matter may well be within their proper jurisdiction,’” read a portion of the Ombudsman’s discussion on the grounds.

“Thus, the reassignment orders remain valid precisely because there is, as yet, no final judgment ordering otherwise; any execution of the judgment of the CSC is still held in abeyance pending the foregoing Petitions for Review…”

The respondent-movants also referenced cases where the Court ruled that the Civil Service Commission (CSC), not the Ombudsman, has jurisdiction over employee reassignments in the civil service.

Additionally, the Memorandum of Agreement on Complaint Referral System, dated December 12, 2016, between the Office of the Ombudsman and the CSC, states that the Ombudsman will dismiss any complaints related to human resource actions. Complaints appealing decisions or actions involving human resource movement in the Civil Service fall under this agreement.

READ: Cebu City Mayor Mike Rama suspended for 6 months

Ombudsman suspends Cebu City mayor, 7 others

‘Suspension has become unnecessary’

The respondent-movants further claimed that the salaries and benefits due to the complainants have been paid, processed, and/or indexed accordingly.

“For instance, the allowance/other compensation and other personnel benefits of complainant Filomena Atuel was paid on July 20, 2023, November 17, 2023, December 28, 2023, and December 29, 2023; and, Charter Day bonuses of all the complainants were given to them on February 2024. Likewise, several efforts have been exerted by respondent-movants and the Cebu City Government to release the other salaries and wages of complainants,” the discussion read.

The respondent-movants argued that since they have already submitted their Counter-Affidavits and supporting documents, the preventive suspension period has become unnecessary.

They claimed that the suspension no longer serves its intended purpose of preventing them from hiding documents or interfering with witnesses. Therefore, the six-month suspension meant to allow the investigation without their interference is now redundant.

They also noted that the Complaint did not meet the two necessary requirements for issuing a preventive suspension. Furthermore, they argued that Rama would suffer significant and irreparable harm if the preventive suspension order is not lifted.

Motions failed to persuade

Despite the respondent-movants’ claims, the Ombudsman found the evidence of their guilt strong, stating that the conditions for the Preventive Suspension Order were met.

The Ombudsman also noted that the motions did not persuade them otherwise. Additionally, the Ombudsman found that the charges involved serious issues like dishonesty, oppression, or grave misconduct.

The Preventive Suspension Order was based on supporting documents attached to the Joint Complaint-Affidavit dated February 23, 2024, and the respondent-movants did not challenge these documents as inadmissible.

“The issuance of a preventive suspension order does not amount to a prejudgment of the merits of the case, neither is it a demonstration of a public official’s guilt as such pronouncement can be done only after trial on the merits.

“On the claim that respondent-movants were denied of their fundamental right to due process of law, it is emphasized that an order of preventive suspension can be decreed even before the charges are heard since the same is not in the nature of a penalty but merely a preliminary step in an administrative investigation,” the Ombudsman added.

Therefore, all the motions filed by Rama and the other suspended officials were denied “for lack of merit” and “the May 2, 2024 Order of Preventive Suspension stands.”

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. /with reporter Pia Piquero

/clorenciana