Over Ombudsman’s “delay" in resolving cases: Rama seeks Supreme Court intervention

CEBU, Philippines — With still no response from the Office of the Ombudsman regarding his dismissal from office, former Cebu City mayor Michael “Mike” Rama proceeded to the Supreme Court to file a petition for mandamus and prohibition with an application for the urgent issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.

Rama filed the petition himself yesterday at the Supreme Court in Manila in relation to the nepotism and grave misconduct cases lodged in 2023 by Jonel Saceda, also known as Inday Josa Chiongbian Osmeña.

Rama, in his petition, stressed that it is a constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases and that “justice delayed is justice denied.

He also emphasized that prolonged litigation caused by inefficiencies and bureaucratic red tape hinders the fair administration of justice, leading to undue hardship, financial burdens, and emotional distress.

Rama, through his counsel–Rama Baena Tan and Ang (RBAT) law offices, felt his present situation is a “glaring indication of political harassment and vendetta” against him.

“The essence of due process lies in the opportunity to present his case; but in the presence of inordinate delay, as what the Ombudsman did in this case, Mayor Rama’s right to his day in court has become a sham,” part of the petition obtained by The Freeman reads.

Rama's camp stressed that the longer the case against him remains unresolved, the more difficult it becomes for him to adequately defend himself, as critical witnesses may no longer be available, nor their recollections of events reliable.

The petition for prohibition and mandamus hopes for the Supreme Court to command the Ombudsman to desist from further proceedings and forthwith dismiss the case filed by Inday Josa.

They claimed that the Ombudsman’s handling of Rama’s case “is tainted with gross abuse of discretion, palpable excess of authority, and manifest injustice amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Ombudsman.”

From the time the complaint was filed up to the filing of the petition, the proceedings allegedly had anomalies and irregularities.

Rama filed a motion for reconsideration on his dismissal order after it was allegedly published online by unauthorized persons, but the Ombudsman has not acted on it, nor on his request for a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction (“WPI”).

On December 20, 2024, Rama, through his counsel, inquired about the status of the Ombudsman case, yet the motion for reconsideration has remained pending before the Ombudsman since its filing.

It was also stressed that the Ombudsman has unjustifiably refused to act on most of Rama’s pleadings, especially the motion for reconsideration, despite it already being established that private respondent Saceda had no personal knowledge of the allegations, nor was the complaint based on authentic records, and that the issues involved were not at all complicated.

A final inquiry was made on February 3, 2025, “and, still, there was no movement as to the motion for reconsideration or of any of the previous pleadings filed, for that matter.”

It was also stressed that the twelve-month period within which the administrative case should have been adjudicated had already lapsed.

“Even if the period were to be tacked from February 2023, the case likewise should have already been resolved by February 2024. However, the decision was rendered and approved only in September 2024.

Clearly, it was well beyond the twelve-month period which the Ombudsman itself mandated in its rules of procedure.”

It has been 25 months now, and there is still no resolution from the Ombudsman, they said.

“Thus, Mayor Rama is left with no other recourse but to seek relief from this Honorable Court," the petition noted.

RBTA also cited “peculiar circumstances” that they felt “are a very strong indication that Mayor Rama is being singled out and maliciously prosecuted through frivolous and politically motivated complaints.”

This includes the timing of the filing of the complaint, which was a month after the criminal and administrative complaint for plunder and grave misconduct against Atty. Floro Casas Jr. (“Atty. Casas”) was filed following Rama’s request for an investigation.

They also pointed to the “flip-flopping” of the venue between OMB Central and OMB Visayas, with the abrupt transfer to OMB Central coinciding with the protracted preventive suspension brought by the Atuel case.

Additionally, all pending cases against Rama before the Ombudsman are allegedly being heard by a “Special Panel of Investigators.”

Then-acting Mayor Raymond Garcia’s alleged access to confidential records of the September 9, 2024 decision on Rama’s dismissal was also cited, along with the unauthorized publication of the September 9, 2024, decision on social media—suspiciously, they said, was right after Mayor Rama filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the upcoming 2025 midterm elections.

The September 9, 2024, decision was also noted to have been signed by the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Officers (“MOLEO”), despite there being no military or law enforcement officer involved in Rama’s case.

At the end of the 35-page petition, Rama prays for the Supreme Court to issue a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction enjoining the Ombudsman from issuing any further orders or resolutions pertaining to the case docketed as OMB-V-A-MAY-23-0115, entitled "Inday Josa Chongbian Osmeña (Real Name: Jonel B. Saceda) v. Michael L. Rama", and from further implementing the decision dated September 9, 2024, until the instant petition is resolved with finality.

Along with this, he seeks to compel the Ombudsman to resolve the case or, if not, dismiss it, alleging that the latter has acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack of jurisdiction and should be prohibited from proceeding with the case.(CEBU NEWS)