Ombudsman junks Tom’s case vs Mike

CEBU, Philippines - The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas dismissed the criminal complaint filed by former Cebu City south district congressman Tomas Osmena against Mayor Michael Rama in relation to the proposed city budget for 2012.

In a seven-page decision penned by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I Darius Sagadal, the Ombudsman junked the complaint for lack of probable cause.

The ruling was dated February 19 but was only received by the office of the mayor on December 18.

Osmeña had filed a complaint against Rama for alleged violation of articles 131, 233, 177, and 226 of the Revised Penal Code.

In his November 2011 complaint, Osmeña alleged that Rama meddled in the 2012 budget hearing of the City Council by sending then assistant city treasurer Emma Villarete instead of then city treasurer Tessie Camarillo.

Rama, in his defense, said that he sent Villarete after losing trust and confidence in Camarillo and that he requested the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) to have Camarillo replaced at the time.

Osmeña further alleged that sending Villarete instead of Camarillo disrupted the budget hearing, with the council refusing to recognize Villarete and Rama insisting on sending his designated officer.

The ruling

In his ruling, Sagadal said: "The charge of Refusal of Assistance is dismissed because it lacks the vital element of damage to public interest. This is clearly established by the approval of the City's 2012 Budget."

The ruling said there was no evidence to prove that Rama violated Article 131, which prohibits the interruption, and dissolution of peaceful meetings.

As regards to Article 226, which prohibits the removal, concealment or destruction of documents, Sagadal said the DBM letters alleged to be "concealed did not bear any indication that it was received or in fact hidden away."

On Article 177, Sagadal ruled that sending Villarete to the hearing is not taking the role of the DBM secretary, as the complaint alleged, therefore Rama is not liable for usurpation of authority.

"There is a great difference between an appointment and designation. While an appointment is the selection by the proper authority of an individual who is to exercise the powers and functions of a given office, designation merely connotes an imposition of additional duties, usually by law, upon a person already in the public service by virtue of an earlier appointment," the ruling read.

Pleased with the ruling

Rama said he is pleased with the decision, stressing that he has not done anything wrong.

"I have always been doing things with clarity in my mind and heart," Rama told reporters during a press conference yesterday.

He said the Ombudsman decision was a very good Christmas gift to him.

Osmena, for his part, said the dismissal is not tantamount to proving that the current mayor is not guilty.

"It says lack of evidence. It did not say that Rama is innocent. It did not say what evidence is needed," said Osmeña, a former ally of Rama.

Asked if his camp will file for a motion for reconsideration, Osmena replied that "let the people be the judge." -/LPM (FREEMAN)