THE Ombudsman has dismissed the administrative complaint that the former head of Cebu City’s Office of Senior Citizens Affairs (Osca) filed against Mayor Raymond Alvin Garcia and other officials to contest his termination as a coterminous employee of dismissed mayor Michael Rama.
The anti-graft office, in its evaluator’s report issued on Jan. 10, 2025, rejected the arguments of former Osca chief Homer Cabaral, who said the Ombudsman lacked authority to remove mayors of highly urbanized cities and that Rama’s dismissal was invalid because the decision was not properly served.
“It must be pointed out that the complainant, who believes that the Office of the Ombudsman has no authority to dismiss mayors of highly urbanized cities, is asking the very same Office to take action on his complaint against Mayor Garcia. The difference in his stand was lost on this Office,” the Ombudsman said in the report penned by Corazon Arnado-Carrillo, acting director of Central Records and Evaluation Monitoring and Enforcement Bureau.
Cabaral, a lawyer, also argued that his termination was unjustified and filed criminal and administrative complaints against Garcia, Department of the Interior and Local Government 7 Director Leocadio Trovela, City Administrator Kristine Joy Batucan, and Human Resources head Henry Tumalabcad. He accused them of usurpation of authority under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code and violations of Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
However, the Ombudsman said its authority to remove or discipline public officials is granted by the 1987 Constitution and has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court.
Before Cabaral was removed, he served as the Osca head under then-mayor Rama. The Ombudsman dismissed Rama from service in October 2024 due to nepotism and grave misconduct charges for signing the appointment papers of his two brothers-in-law.
After Rama’s dismissal, Trovela swore in Garcia as the full-fledged mayor. Garcia had been serving as acting mayor since the dismissal order was issued while Rama was under suspension for another case.
Osca executive director Chito Aragon was appointed as Cabaral’s replacement in late October.
Cabaral contested his removal before the Ombudsman on Nov. 8. Aside from arguing that the anti-graft office lacked authority to remove mayors of highly urbanized cities, he also claimed that the dismissal order was not properly served to Rama.
The Ombudsman rejected Cabaral’s argument that its ruling on Rama’s dismissal was not immediately executory.
According to Ombudsman’s Rule 3, Section 7 of Administrative Order 7, failure or refusal to implement an Ombudsman decision—such as the removal, suspension, demotion, or fining of an official—can result in disciplinary action against those who do not comply.
The anti-graft office further stated that appeals do not suspend the enforcement of its decisions. Thus, the ruling against Rama and other officials remains in effect unless the Court of Appeals overturns it.
Decision welcomed
Garcia, for his part, welcomed the decision.
The ruling affirmed his authority as mayor and “upholds the rule of law in our city’s governance,” Garcia said in a statement to SunStar Cebu on Thursday, March 20.
Garcia explained that coterminous officials serve at the pleasure of their appointing authority. When Rama was removed from office, his coterminous employees also vacated their posts.
“The Ombudsman’s decision makes it clear that due process was followed and that the executive functions of City Hall must continue without legal ambiguity or political distraction,” Garcia said.
“I urge everyone to respect the Ombudsman’s ruling and move forward in ensuring that City Hall remains focused on serving the people of Cebu City with efficiency, accountability, and good governance. Let us work together for the betterment of our city,” he added.
Garcia also said the dismissal of Cabaral’s complaint affirmed the validity of the Ombudsman’s dismissal order against Rama.
“An order that he (Rama) has refused to acknowledge, claiming it is not yet in effect because he has not personally received a copy. The Ombudsman’s ruling contradicts this argument, reinforcing that the legal process has already been completed and is fully enforceable,” Garcia said. / EHP