THE ordinance, #1958 of February 12, 2003, is specific about the No. 1 requirement for operating a terminal for PUJs (public utility jeepneys) and V-hires (for-hire vans) within Cebu City: accreditation from TAC or technical accreditation committee and approval by the City Council.
The V-hire terminal that operated since November 2016 at the city-owned lot along Junquera St., Barangay Kamagayan did not meet the requirement. On top of that, the terminal violated other provisions of the ordinance, including the amount collected as fees, which resulted allegedly in lost revenues that would've gone to the City Government.
Charged in the complaint filed by then city councilor Raymond Alvin Garcia, now city vice mayor, were Tomas Osmeña, the mayor at the time who "expressly approved" the terminal's operation, and Tessie Caga Camarillo, who, as collector of fees, allegedly was "persuaded, induced and influenced" by Osmeña as "complicit in the illegal activity."
Both Osmeña and Camarillo allegedly committed three violations under Section 3 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act 3019 of 1960) and several other violations of City Ordinance #1958.
The Ombudsman's finding: the two City Hall officials did not.
'TOOK SO LONG.' The Ombudsman resolution was submitted by Imelda Marie Beltran, graft investigation and prosecution officer, on December 15, 2022 and approved five days later by Acting Assistant Ombudsman Jane Aguilar. But it was released on September 3, 2023 and received by the respondents in Cebu City only last October 25.
The case took five years to be resolved and almost one year to notify the parties. It would've taken much longer had the case reached Sandiganbayan and Supreme Court.
The treasurer, Camarillo, complained in her answer, invoking her right to speedy disposition of the case, saying the alleged crime "transpired about half a decade ago" and the investigation "took so long," beyond the six-month or 12-month period provided under Ombudsman rules.
NO PROBABLE CAUSE. The sole issue tackled by the Ombudsman was whether there was probable cause for charging Osmeña and Camarillo with the Sandiganbayan. No, said the Ombudsman.
ELEMENTS Of THE CRIME. In clearing the mayor and the treasurer, the Ombudsman cited the absence of evidence of some elements to constitute the crime in three counts:
[1] On influencing an officer to perform an illegal act (Section 3-a): The Ombudsman didn't think then mayor Osmeña "persuaded, induced or influenced" then treasurer Camarillo who allowed herself to be so "persuaded, induced or influenced."
No discussion in the ruling about it but one might wonder if the treasurer just collected P1.2 million in "miscellaneous fees" from the terminal without verifying the legality of the terminal's operation, especially after a councilor in a privilege speech demanded for its closure and the Sanggunian itself decided against its continued operation. The Ombudsman apparently just looked for evidence of the persuasion or inducement from the mayor and found none.
[2] On causing undue injury to any party or giving any party any unwarranted advantage, partiality, bad faith or negligence (Section 3-e): No evidence of any of that, said the Ombudsman and -- here's the underpinning of the over-all conclusion for the respondents -- the anti-graft agency was convinced that Osmeña allowed the terminal's temporary operation "to solve a pressing transportation problem (traffic congestion) affecting the public." It was part of his mandate as mayor of the local government. The V-hire drivers were not given unwarranted benefit "because the ultimate consideration was the availability of transportation and convenience of the riding public."
[3] On neglecting or refusing to act within a reasonable time on a pending matter to obtain pecuniary or material benefit or advantage (Section 3-f): The elements of not acting on reasonable time to gain some benefit are "wanting," said the Ombudsman. Osmeña's action was "for the riding public."
ORDINANCE DOESN'T APPLY, SAYS RULING. Along with the conviction that Osmeña acted for public good was the Ombudsman's embrace of Tomas's argument that City Ordinance #1958 didn't apply to the case.
The Ombudsman's reasons: The "temporary use" and the "experimental scheme" remove the Kamagayan terminal from the coverage of the ordinance, noting that the City Government had been making "feasibility studies" in the past to solve the problem posed by V-hires. Osmeña had argued that the ordinance does not apply to the Kamagayan case because the terminal must be of permanent character, "as contemplated in the definition of the word 'terminal'" in City Ordinance #1958.
Add to that, or on top of that, is the Ombudsman's support to the "general welfare clause" that Osmeña's defense used: the mayor is the hero here, guys, not the villain. He didn't neglect to act, he acted and no one benefited but the public.
NEWS AS BASIS. Osmeña had belittled the complainant's evidence, alleging that allegations of fact in the complaint "are all based on news reports the complainant may have read on line," which the Supreme Court said "have no probative value as they constitute 'hearsay evidence twice removed.'"
Camarillo, in declaring the complaint "utterly bare," had also said it contains "purely unfounded insinuations taken from media reports." The complainant, she said, failed to validate the news publications and present the sworn statement of the authors.
The Ombudsman ruling didn't touch on the kind of evidence presented, whether the complainant submitted evidence other than the news reports. It merely said "the facts and the evidence" didn't establish probable cause.
ODD RESPONDENT. Then treasurer Camarillo was the odd respondent who wondered in her reply why she was dragged to the litigation. She said that in 39 paragraphs of the complaint, only in paragraphs 16 and 17 was her name mentioned.
In the Ombudman's "ruling" part -- covering two pages and a third, out of the 12-page resolution -- she and her arguments were mentioned only in the "wherefore" clause that said the cases against Osmeña and her was dismissed.
The only way she could've been held liable was if she conspired or colluded with Osmeña. That was not proved.
LIMITS ON POLICE POWER. When the City Council in March 2017 asked the mayor to close the Kamagayan V-hire terminal, the vote was close, eight-seven, reflecting the narrow dominance of Barug in the Sanggunian during BOPK Tomas Osmeña's 2016-2019 term.
The Sanggunian resolution, based on a committee report, listed the reasons for the illegality, including these: location within the central downtown area; lack of the TAC papers and recommendations from the zoning board and the city's transportation office; no permits for the terminal and a gas station operating inside; and no memorandum of agreement and contract of lease.
The Ombudsman ruling said the exercise of police power under the local government by Osmeña is "not unbridled." "It follows some perimeters laid down by the law or an ordinance." But after saying that, the Ombudsman didn't say whether the exemption of the terminal from Ordinance #1958 also exempted it from such requirements as business permits and other City Hall requirements imposed by other ordinances.
The mayor didn't give in to the City Council 2017 request, saying the operation was just experimental, which "may last for 30 days more." Obviously, it lasted longer than that.
BIT OF POLITICS IN IT. Whether covered by ordinance or not, the Kamagayan terminal case wouldn't have reached the courts had the executive and legislative departments amicably talked about it, to clarify that it was an exception and wasn't like the city mayor could just disregard a validly enacted ordinance.
Politics obviously had a lot to do with the drawn-out dispute.