DILG denies implementing Cebu mayor’s dismissal
Text size
Three decades after the Marcopper mining disaster devastated Marinduque’s waterways, the province is again pressing the…
Housing is probably the biggest issue affecting people the world over.
Malacañang on Monday called for a more thorough investigation into the questioned flood control projects in Taguig…
The defense on Monday backed the move by senator-judges to exclude a prosecution witness who testified on the firearms…
The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) on Friday denied that they are the one who implemented the dismissal of Cebu City Mayor Mike Rama, and clarified that it was the Office of the Ombudsman who implemented its decision.
The DILG made the clarification after a published report (not in THE DAILY TRIBUNE) indicated a “misleading claims” that it was the department who implemented the dismissal of Rama.
The article titled, “DILG denies implementing dismissal order vs. Cebu City Mayor Mike Rama” came out in Abogado.com.ph, according to the DILG, “which inaccurately portrays the Department’s stance and actions regarding the case involving Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama.”
The DILG explained that in a letter dated 18 October 2024, Atty. Joshua L. Monsanto of RBTA Law requested documents regarding the implementation of the Office of the Ombudsman’s Decision dated 9 September 2024, in the case entitled “Jonel B. Saceda a.k.a. Inday Josa Chiongbian Osmeña vs. Michael L. Rama (Mayor, Cebu City).”
“In response thereto, the Department informed Atty. Monsanto that it is not privy to the implementation of the said decision considering that the September 9, 2024 Ombudsman Decision does not contain a directive for implementation,” the DILG statement read.
It pointed out that the Department advised Atty. Monsanto to coordinate directly with the Office of the Ombudsman for his request considering that it was the Office of the Ombudsman which implemented its Decision.
And after verifying that the Decision had been implemented, “the Department, through the Regional Director, facilitated the assumption to office of the Vice Mayor.”
“For the information of the public, the Department’s authority to implement Ombudsman decisions arises when we are specifically directed to implement the same pursuant to Section 7, Rule III of [Ombudsman Rules of Procedure] in relation to Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 2006 dated 11 April 2006,” the DILG said.
“Thus, not all decisions of the Ombudsman are implemented by the Department. The Ombudsman has the authority and discretion to implement its own decisions which is what happened in the instant case.”
