Rama barred from running for public office

Local

FORMER Cebu City mayor Michael “Mike” Rama can no longer run for any elective local position after the Commission on Elections (Comelec) First Division granted a petition disqualifying him under Section 40(b) of the Local Government Code (LGC).

The division ruled that Rama’s previous dismissal from government service by the Office of the Ombudsman for nepotism and grave misconduct carries with it the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government service, making him ineligible to seek public office.

The ruling, released this week, stemmed from a petition for disqualification filed by Jundel L. Bontuyan, a registered voter from Barangay Adlaon, Cebu City, who cited the Ombudsman’s 2024 decision against Rama in the administrative case docketed as OMB-V-A-MAY-23-0115.

Bontuyan argued that under Section 40(b) of the LGC, individuals “removed from office as a result of an administrative case” are prohibited from running for any elective local position.

He also pointed out that decisions of the Ombudsman “shall be executed as a matter of course,” and that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not stop its immediate execution unless a temporary restraining order (TRO) or injunction is issued by a competent court.

The Comelec First Division agreed with the petitioner, affirming that Rama’s removal from office by the Ombudsman constitutes a ground for disqualification.

“It is undisputed that the Respondent had been found guilty by the Ombudsman of Nepotism and Grave Misconduct, and was meted with the following penalties, to wit:

‘WHEREFORE, this Office finds MICHAEL L. RAMA guilty of Nepotism and Grave Misconduct and is hereby meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE, which shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits except for accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service.”

Rama had maintained that the Ombudsman’s decision has not yet become final due to his pending motion for reconsideration.

But the Comelec disagreed, citing the Cobarde-Gamallo vs. Escandor case, where the Supreme Court held that the filing of a motion for reconsideration or an appeal “does not stay the immediate execution” of an Ombudsman ruling.

“The appeal or motion for reconsideration filed by the Respondent cannot and should not render the above-quoted provision of law nugatory and without effect,” the Comelec said.

“Respondent’s filing of a motion for reconsideration does not stay the immediate implementation of the

Ombudsman’s order of dismissal since ‘a decision of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course.’”

The Commission also cited Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, known as the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure, and Memorandum Circular No. 01, Series of 2006, which direct that Ombudsman decisions in administrative disciplinary cases “shall be executed as a matter of course.”

The Comelec First Division further recognized the constitutional authority of the Office of the Ombudsman to issue and enforce its own rules of procedure to promote accountability in public service.

“We recognize and respect the constitutional power and prerogative of the Office of the Ombudsman to promulgate its rules of procedure and to effectively enforce the same so that it can perform its constitutional mandate of ensuring accountability, as well as the observance of high ethical standards and efficiency in government,” the decision stated.

The ruling emphasized that the Ombudsman’s immediate execution clause aims to strengthen anti-corruption measures in government by ensuring that erring officials are promptly removed from office.

In its dispositive portion, the Comelec First Division made it clear that Rama’s removal from office disqualifies him from seeking any elective local position in connection with the 2025 National and Local Elections (NLE).

“In closing, it must be emphasized that Section 40 of the LGC is clear and unequivocal: those removed from office as a result of an administrative case may be disqualified from running for any elective local position,” the decision read.(TGP)