DQ petition vs. Rama insufficient

CEBU, Philippines — Beating yesterday’s deadline set by the Commission on Elections to respond to a petition against him, former Cebu City mayor Michael Rama’s legal counsel said the petition for disqualification to run in the next election filed against Rama is patently insufficient and based on unclear grounds.

Atty. Luis Vera Cruz Jr., said the petition filed by former supporter Jundel Bontuyan last October 18 “failed to state a cause of action”.

Prior to this, Rama already got a Temporary Restraining Order against Comelec from the Supreme Court en banc.

“As such, it is not for this Honorable Commission to motu proprio cancel the Certificates of Candidacy (COC) of candidates who are subject to a merely executory but not yet final decision by the Ombudsman with a corresponding penalty of disqualification,” part of Rama’s reply read.

His camp also said the circumstances concerning the accusation on his nepotism case that led to the Office of the Ombudman’s decision of dismissal of Rama are irrelevant, immaterial, and improper in relation to the petition as it doesn’t concern any alleged material infirmities in his COC or of his qualifications.

At the time of filing his COC, Rama reportedly had no knowledge of nor been served a copy of the decision by the Ombudsman in the administrative case, hence he didn’t make any material misrepresentation in answering or filling up the COC.

They also said “the decision of the Ombudsman in the administrative case, once served, is not a final judgment that would render Mayor Rama’s COC void or disqualify him from running for office”.

Although they didn’t officially received a copy of the anti-graft office’s decision and copies were circulated in social media, in interest of justice and due process, Rama found it prudent to timely file on October 15, 2024 a Motion for Reconsideration regarding the decision dated September 9, 2024.

The Department of Interior and Local Government in a letter to Rama’s legal team stated that it isn’t privy to any implementation order from the Ombudsman.

With this, Rama moved for the dismissal of the petition as the petitioner hinges his entire case for disqualification on Section 1, Paragraph (c)(3) of Comelec Resolution No. 11046, specifically on the violation of Section 40(b) of the LGC, yet fails to consider that a final decision is needed for it to constitute as a ground for disqualification.

“Under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service the accessory penalty of disqualification is deemed inherent in the penalty of dismissal. It follows then that if the principal penalty of dismissal has not yet attained finality, then the accessory penalty carried with it cannot be deemed final as well,” Rama’s response said.

They said until a decision has been executed and all legal remedies have been exhausted Rama’s qualifications remain intact, and there is no legal basis to bar his candidacy, hence the said petition for Rama’s disqualification should be dismissed.

Bontuyan’s petition also stated that Rama’s COC should be cancelled and delisted in the printing of ballots.

In response, Rama said that the Supreme Court has long emphasized that a Petition for Cancellation of COC is separate and distinct from a Petition for Disqualification as they are governed by different rules.

Aside from that, Vera Cruz SAOD that for denial or Cancellation of COC, the petition must be filed not later than a non-extendible period of 25 days from the filing of subject COC, the petition was filed October 30, 2024 or 27 days since the filing of the COC.

They also added that under the Omnibus Election Code, cancellation of a COC applies only to cases of material misrepresentation and nuisance candidates and Rama is neither a nuisance candidate nor did he make any material misrepresentation in his COC they said.

They also said Comelec shouldn’t disqualify a candidate on ambiguous grounds as this risks violating the principles of due process and fairness.  — (FREEMAN)