DILG: We can’t re-impose Toledo mayor’s suspension

CEBU, Philippines — Unless there is an order from their central office, the Department of Interior and Local Government-Cebu Province said it cannot impose the remaining four-month suspension of Toledo City Mayor Sonny Osmeña.

In January 2017, the Ombudsman rendered a decision suspending Osmeña for one year for grave abuse of authority. The DILG implemented the suspension in September 2017, but Osmeña was only able to serve about eight of the 12 months because the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the ombudsman last May. Within the said month, Osmeña returned to his post and then acting mayor Antonio Yapha acknowledged the CA’s decision.

Yet later that same month, Yapha sought the legal opinion of the DILG on Osmeña's comeback. DILG forwarded the concern to the ombudsman, who said that it has received a copy of the CA decision and has submitted a motion for reconsideration to the said judicial body.

"As consequence of the filing of the Motion, the CA decision is not final and executory," quoted the DILG-7 from the reply of the ombudsman received last month.

DILG Provincial Director Jerome Gonzales clarified that a legal opinion is not an order. The legal opinion of the DILG-7 implied that Osmeña should serve the remaining four months of his one-year suspension despite CA's decision for Osmeña to return to office.

Osmeña's lawyer, Inocencio dela Cerna, asked for a copy of DILG's opinion yesterday. On behalf of his client, he also wrote a letter citing the "irregularities" that he noticed.

"It is highly irregular for DILG to refer the query to the Office of the Ombudsman considering that it is a party to the case and furthermore lost its case. Any reply therefore is self-serving," he wrote.

He further urged DILG to "go slow" and be "neutral" with the matter due to judicial issues.

"We find your actions as irregular, inappropriate, and bordering on being illegal," he said.

Dela Cerna also said his camp is eyeing to file falsification charges against the ombudsman for quoting a portion of the CA decision when in fact, it is non-existent.

"Nowhere in the CA decision did it state that: 'found no good reason to direct the immediate execution,' thus the statement is false, made up, and a direct upfront to the integrity of the Court of Appeals," he said.

With the case already in the level of the CA, the lawyer said that it is in the CA's hands to clear things up, not the ombudsman. (FREEMAN)