Margot O, councilors spared by not voting on calamity aid

Four councilors were not  dragged in the administrative case filed against Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama, Vice Mayor Edgardo Labella  and 12 other council members because they didn’t vote for the  2013 resolution granting P20,000 calamity aid for all City Hall personnel or were absent.

Lawyer Reymelio Delute was  cross-examined yesterday about his complaint during the resumption of hearings by the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG).

“Our basis is Ordinance no. 2379. Councilor Margot Osmeña abstained while Councilors Lea Japson and Richard Osmeña were out of the session hall. They didn’t vote for or against the ordinance,” Delute said.

Delute said he’s not questioning the validity of the budget ordinance but objects to its  across-the-board implementation giving  all employees and officials  P20,000 aid each.

Councilor James Anthony Cuenco, who was out on an official business trip,  was also not included in the case filed before the Office of the President.

Delute explained that  the P20,000 calamity aid was  based on a request from the city’s Program on Awards and Incentive for Service Excellence (Praise) committee after the earthquake and typhoon in 2013.

Since Praise is an executive body, Delute said the  committee’s recommendation was an “initiative” from Mayor Michael Rama.

City lawyer Jerone Castillo had asked Delute why the Praise committee members were not included in the complaint.

Political

But DILG hearing officer Isidro Barrios III said the committee members are not elective officials  and so are not  under the jurisdiction of the Office of the President where the complaint was filed.

Castillo also questioned why the complaint was filed in Malacañang which is “highly political” instead of the Ombudsman’s Offfice.

“It’s my choice. (Highly political?) You’re entitled to your own perception,” Delute answered.

Delute said elective officials are under the jurisdiction of the Office of the President.

As to why Vice Mayor Labella was made part of the case when he was presiding officer and unable to vote  for or against the ordinance, Delute said Labella’s mere presence  during the discussion was enough.

Witness

Rama, Labella and 12 out of 16 city councilors were named respondents by Delute in his complaint filed in April last year.

Delute said the mayor committed grave abuse of authority when he augmented the P61 million outlay approved by the City Council with an additional P23 million.

The P23 million was intended to cover the P20,000 calamity assistance to all City Hall employees and elected officials.

Delute’s camp yesterday asked the DILG to  subpoena  City Treasurer Diwa Cuevas to  apear as a witness in the hearing to prove that funds were augmented.

The Commission on Audit (COA) which already issued a Notice of Disallowance for the P20,000 city’  calamity aid was also requested to appear in the next set of hearings. The hearing will resume on October 5 to 8.

Opinion

Castillo said  the complaint for grave abuse of authority and grave misconduct  should have been grounded on facts, not opinons.

During cross-examination, he focused on how Delute’s complaint cited as basis an editorial  on Dec. 20, 2013 in Sun.Star Cebu about the calamity assistance and a Dec. 19, 2013 news  report  of Cebu Daily News.

“When you file a case, you must be familiar of the facts.  He (Delute) admitted that it is, from the start, a mere opinion. And he said it evolved into a conclusion of fact,” Castill told reporters after the hearing.

He asked Delute if he personally verified the contents of the editorial as well as their authors.

Delute replied: “I verified that  by gathering documents from City Hall.”

Factual conclusion

“In the beginning, it was an opinion but later on it ripened to a factual conclusion,” he added, pushing him to dig up documents  in City Hall to support his complaint.

Castillo argued that  a “factual conclusion” was  not a “statement of fact” and was not enough basis for complaint.

Castillo, who is representing Mayor Rama in collaboration with several other lawyers, said they were satisfied with their cross examination of Delute yesterday.

He said Delute “flip-flopped” in some of his arguments and  answers to the city’s questions especially in verifying the statements and documents that were made bases of his complaint.

Sought for comment after the hearing, Delute said his case was still strong.

“The cross examination was not damaging to my case. It’s normal that you are grilled during the cross examination. But what’s important is that my case was not destroyed,” Delute said.