Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama
CEBU CITY, Philippines – The legal battle over the preventive suspension of Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama is far from over.
This after the suspended mayor filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of the order of the Ombudsman, where he argued that the directive to suspend him was a violation of the law.
In a press briefer released on August 20, Rama filed a petition to the Supreme Court, challenging his suspension under the provisions of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) and Administrative Order No. 7 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman).
READ MORE:
EXPLAINER: Rama suspension and why the Ombudsman ordered it?
The crux of his argument is that these provisions, as applied to elective local officials like himself, are “unconstitutional” and infringe on the rights of the electorate.
Rama’s petition specifically targets Section 24 of RA 6770 and Section O, Rule III of AO 7, which grant the Ombudsman the authority to impose preventive suspensions during administrative investigations.
SC requires Ombudsman, DILG to file comment
In response to Rama’s petition, the Supreme Court En Banc required Ombudsman Samuel Martires and Department of Interior and Local Government Secretary Benjamin Abalos, Jr. to file their comments on the petition within 10 days.
This includes a response to both the constitutional challenge and Rama’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the suspension from taking effect while the case is under review.
The Court emphasized that no extensions would be granted for this deadline.
Lacks clear parameters
In an interview with CDN Digital on the same day, while Rama initially responded, he redirected the questioning to his legal team lead, Lawyer Collin Rosell, who is also under preventive suspension as the city administrator.
Rosell was adamant that the six-month suspension was excessive and lacked clear parameters, leaving it open to potential abuse.
Rosell explained that the high stakes of this legal challenge go beyond his preventive suspension, as it not only strips him of his office but also denies the electorate their constitutional right to be represented by their elected official.
“Diri sa local government officials, kahibaw ka nga tag-three terms ra, ug tag-three years ra pud. Sa three terms with three years, ang six months preventive suspension is very vital. Ang punto kay gideprive nimo ang electorate og six months gyud ba, grabe ka lawom ra na siya kaayo. Ang electorate, imo nang gideprive sa ilang gi-elect,” Rosell said.
He further argued that the Ombudsman’s decision to suspend Rama for six months, without clear justification, frustrates the will of the electorate.
Rosell pointed out that such suspensions are typically meant to last only 90 days, and extending this period to six months sets a dangerous precedent that could be exploited in the future.
He also cited the previous case of former City Mayor Alvin Garcia vs. Arturo Mojica, where the Supreme Court ruled that a 24-day preventive suspension was a “grave abuse of discretion.”
Rosell believes Garcia’s case is even more compelling, as it involves an elected official, while Rama’s case “only” dealt with internal employee-related matters.
“Ingon ani, naa man na’y categories, but to make a comparison, the case of Garcia is about asphalt, something about anomalies, procurement of asphalt. Kani siya, murag nahulog ra man ni siya og internal employees related nga civil service ra ni siya nga kaso,” he said.
Supreme Court En Banc
The term “Supreme Court En Banc” refers to a session where all justices of the Supreme Court participate in hearing and deciding a case together, rather than the case being assigned to a smaller division or panel of justices.
In the Philippines, the Supreme Court typically operates in smaller divisions of three, five, or seven justices. However, for particularly significant or complex cases—such as those involving constitutional issues, novel legal questions, or matters of public interest—the Court may decide to hear the case “en banc,” meaning with all 15 justices present. This is done to ensure a more authoritative and comprehensive ruling.