Preventive suspension Supreme Court tells Ombudsman, DILG: File comment on Rama petition

CEBU, Philippines — The Supreme Court has acted on the petition filed by Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama, who is currently serving a six-month preventive suspension, requiring Ombudsman Samuel Martires and Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Benjamin Abalos, Jr. to file their comments.

On August 12, 2024, Rama's camp filed a petition to reverse the preventive suspension imposed on him and seven other officials of Cebu City Hall. The petition filed is for certiorari and prohibition with an Urgent Prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.

Approximately a week later, on August 20, 2024, the Supreme Court En Banc, during its session, required Martires and Abalos, Jr. to file their comments on Rama’s petition.

“The petition challenges Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989 and Section O, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7 or the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as amended, as they apply to elective local officials such as Mayor Rama,” reads a portion of the statement released by the SC.

Rama’s petition also asks the Court to vacate the Ombudsman Order placing him under preventive suspension for allegedly “constructively dismissing employees at the Cebu City Assessor’s Office.”

The Supreme Court has required the respondents to file their comments on the petition and the prayer for a temporary restraining order within a non-extendible period of 10 days from notice.

Attorney Joselito Baena, spokesperson for Rama, stated that they welcome the development, emphasizing its significance considering that their petition was filed just last week.

“The prompt and decisive action of the highest court in the land gives justice to the urgency and transcendental importance of the matter,” Baena said.

It was reported that Rama and seven other city hall officials have been slapped with a six-month preventive suspension by the Office of the Ombudsman for a case filed by four employees after they were reassigned to different offices and had not been paid their salaries for ten months.

In the 10-page resolution, the anti-graft office found sufficient grounds to place the mayor and the seven other officials under preventive suspension for grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming of a public officer, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, grave abuse of authority (oppression), and violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for public officials and employees (administrative case). — (FREEMAN)