Rama faces graft raps

Friday, November 25, 2011

MEMBERS of the Cebu City Council spent four weeks and eight budget hearings looking at numbers instead of coming up with an anti-graft complaint against Mayor Michael Rama.

Yesterday, Rep. Tomas Osmeña (Cebu City, south district) filed the letter-complaint asking the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas to place the mayor under preventive suspension.

Have something to report? Tell us in text, photos or videos.

But Councilor Margarita Osmeña, the chairperson of the committee on budget and finance and the congressman’s wife, said the council does not have the time to think about a court case because it’s too busy going over the P11.8-billion budget, department by department.

“We are too caught up with what we are doing. We just want to finish this,” she said.

Bases

One of the bases for the congressman’s complaint was Rama’s directive to bar some department heads from attending a pre-budget hearing and to ask for the suspension of the first budget hearing.

The congressman also noted three communications from the Department of Budget Management (DBM) intended for the council, coursed through the mayor, that never reached its members.

The DBM letters were on unauthorized allowances included in the 2011 annual budget and two supplemental budgets for the year.

He said this entails concealment of documents, a violation of the Revised Penal Code.

Atty. Jade Ponce, Rama’s consultant and spokesperson, said they have yet to receive a copy of the congressman’s letter-complaint.

The lawyer said he’s puzzled why the congressman didn’t furnish the City a copy, which is standard in the filing of formal cases at the anti-graft office.

He later brushed the complaint aside, saying that based on the complaint, as quoted by newspapers, it doesn’t appear that the congressman made it himself.

‘Novice oversight’

“The complaint calls for preventive suspension on an alleged act that isn’t even covered by the anti-graft law as something to be preventively suspended. Erudite as he is, I don’t think Congressman Osmeña would commit such a novice oversight,” Ponce said.

On allegations the mayor bullied department heads by directing them not to attend a session last Oct. 27, Ponce said no one has come forward.

“If there is anybody who ought to complain that they are being bullied, it should be the department heads themselves. Why don’t we ask them if they feel bullied?” he said.

Ponce also dismissed allegations the mayor is “using and abusing his authority right before our very eyes” and that this warrants preventive suspension.

“If the complaint still centers on the Oct. 27 hearing, it is still ongoing. So what has been prejudiced?” he said.

“Is he (Osmeña) talking about the extra zeal and dedication of Mayor Mike Rama to finally to do the things that a mayor ought to do?” Ponce said.

“If these constitute abuse, I say, let’s have more of it. The city needs it.”

Preliminary probe

Meanwhile, the anti-graft office said the graft charges the congressman filed against the mayor will have to undergo a preliminary investigation.

Assistant Visayas Ombudsman Virginia Santiago told reporters the case will soon be evaluated. If the ombudsman finds sufficient evidence to proceed with a formal probe, Santiago said the charges will be docketed and raffled off to a graft investigator.

She emphasized that “high-profile cases” are given priority by their office. If the graft investigator establishes that the respondent has to be preventively suspended pending the investigation, the public official will be removed from office for six months without pay, she said.

The anti-graft office has to resolve the motions filed before it before placing the respondent under preventive suspension.

“We will look into the documents thoroughly in order not to commit mistakes,” Santiago said.

The anti-graft office is often careful in placing a public official under preventive suspension pending the outcome of the formal investigation since he cannot get back his salary even if the case against him is dismissed, Santiago said.

Usually, the entire process, from evaluation until the filing or dismissal of the case, takes about a month.

She emphasized that the primary objective of preventive suspension is to prevent the respondent from “harassing or tampering records or documents” and if the complaint carries the penalty of dismissal from service.