[] As to the future of the alliance and a Rama-Garcia tandem in 2025, few would bet on a ‘still go.’ As Tomas Osmeña used to say, ‘Ambot sa langaw.’
“Kana pang buhi pa ko, buhi pa ko…” -- Suspended mayor Michael Rama
EIGHTEEN days from Vice Mayor Raymond Alvin Garcia’s first day in office as acting mayor, following the May 10, 2024 suspension of Mayor Michael Rama, Rama publicly complained of changes in “policies and directions” at City Hall.
Friday, May 31, Rama bewailed, “I am bothered,” saying twice he was still alive ("buhi pa ko") and he heard about and saw bad things and actions (“mga bati”) and, waving the cliché, “actions speak louder than words.”
Suspended mayor (SM) Rama was referring to policy direction at City Hall, specifically the decision of Acting Mayor (AM) Garcia to use diplomacy in managing City Hall’s dispute with Cebu Port Authority.
‘DIPLOMACY VS. AGGRESSION.’ Last May 14, AM Garcia said he’d “adopt a more diplomatic approach” in dealing with such hotspots in city government relations as the CPA (Cebu Port Authority) row, MCWD (Metro Cebu Water District) stalemate, and eruptions over the Cebu BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) project.
The contrast in policy, AM Garcia as compared to SM Rama, is summed up in the news bite: “Diplomacy vs. Aggression.” And that posture he has pursued: a poster boy on peace and let’s-talk, as compared to Rama, a poster man on let’s-go-and-get-‘em. Rama’s gung-ho mood was reflected in the CDN Digital May 1 news headline: “Rama fights back: to file ‘tsunami' of cases vs. MCWD, CPA.” That, in return fire to the complaints filed on the same day by the two “belligerent” government agencies.
QUESTION, PLEASE. Can an acting mayor overhaul or replace the policy of the suspended mayor during the period of suspension, when the mayor is just on forced absence? Whether the absence conforms with the process or “malicious,” as SM Rama called it, it looks certain that the acting mayor can lawfully do so.
Rama’s being alive and allegation of malice in his suspension may not be relevant to the legal question of whether the acting mayor can lawfully modify or discard his policies.
The vice mayor as acting mayor, the Local Government Code says, “can perform all the powers and duties pertaining to the office of the mayor,” including the power to appoint, suspend or dismiss employees,” since the period of the mayor’s (here, Rama’s) temporary incapacity exceeds 30 working days (it’s six months).
ALONG WITH SCOPE OF AM’s POWER, MAY HIS ACTS LATER BE REVERSED? Unless the last sentence of Section 10, Republic Act No. 4065 of June 18, 1964 has been amended, the law provides that “… all acts performed by him in such capacity shall not be reversed, modified or otherwise revised by the mayor upon the latter’s return.”
While it would seem that there’s no restriction on the acting mayor to change policies of the suspended mayor, there is a prohibition -- unless there’s an amendment we don’t know -- on revising what the acting mayor did during his temporary rule.
At weekend, SM Rama’s lament was that no compromise could be made with CPA as its act was “illegally exercised”: “What power do they have to do things in defiance of the law?” His point being, since coming to terms with CPA violates the law, it can be later discarded upon his re-assumption as mayor.
IT’S ABOUT RELATIONSHIP. A City Hall watcher of issues and events told me Saturday, June 1 that while AM Garcia is given by law the right to do what he sees as right and can lawfully revise or change policies already laid down or being put in place by SM Rama, he must have consulted the mayor-on-leave about them. It’s still Rama’s administration, the source, a lawyer-former politician said, and the acting mayor’s occupancy is only temporary.
In deference to an ally and party leader -- which Rama must be in the administration party Barug -- AM Garcia should’ve taken cue from SM Rama’s “direction and policies.” As Rama complained this week, “You cannot have another policy just because you are the acting mayor.” A Garcia supporter provided this foil though, “from the viewpoint of the Garcia camp” (wait, aren’t they in the same camp?): “The acting mayor is practically trying to save the administration.”
If Garcia took the stance of “correcting the mistakes” of his “ally and party leader,” apparently that hasn’t been understood and appreciated.
WHAT’S AHEAD. Without adding fuel to the fire -- which is already unnecessary as the fire is already big -- some people may speculate or even bet on a Rama-Garcia split in 2025. Asked by a Freeman reporter if they are still allies, Rama said, “You better ask him if he still has confidence in me.”
However Garcia or Rama see each other between now and the COC-filing this October, their views on major issues involving the City Government already clash and collide. Could they still be in the same party slate in the 2025 election? As Tomas Osmeña used to say, “Haay, ambot sa langaw.”