Sandiganbayan junks garbage cases vs Rama

Local

THE Sandiganbayan has junked the graft case against former Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama over allegations that he profited from garbage collection payments.

The Seventh Division of the Anti-Graft court, in an 11-page resolution dated July 6, 2026, ruled that the criminal charge had no basis.

Likewise, they granted Rama’s Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and denied the prosecution’s Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.

The court also ordered the lifting of the Hold Departure Orders (HDO) against all the accused and the release of their bail, in accordance with standard accounting and auditing procedures.

The resolution was penned by Associate Justice Lorifel Lacap Pahimna, chairperson of the division, with Associate Justices Georgina D. Hidalgo and Hans Chester T. Nocom concurring.

In a statement, Rama expressed joy for the Sandiganbayan decision to rule in his favor.

“Sometimes surprises come any day and at any time,” he said. “Today, while attending the fiesta mass at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel with my wife and son, my wife showed me a message with good news from our lawyers…Praise to Our Lady of Mt. Carmel.”

Aside from Rama, the co-respondents, Leizl Calamba, Lyndon Bernardo Basan, Conrado Ordesta III, Janeses Ponce, and Dominic Dino—all members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) under his administration—have also been cleared.

The resolution stems from cases filed in 2023 against the ex-mayor and BAC officials, accusing them of three counts of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 9165) for allegedly awarding three garbage collection contracts without competitive public bidding.

But according to the Sandiganbayan, the prosecution failed to specify the particular acts or omissions allegedly committed by each accused to favor three contractors.

Because of this, their constitutional right to be informed of the exact nature and cause of the accusations against them was not satisfied.

The court also emphasized that merely reciting the elements of the crime is not sufficient without a clear statement of the actual facts of the case.

In denying the prosecution’s Motion for Reconsideration, the court said it merely repeated arguments already raised previously and failed to correct the deficiencies in the amended Informations.

The court further noted that the awarding of a government contract does not automatically mean a graft case exists.

Rather, it said, the prosecution must clearly show facts proving that the award was made through illegal means, involved irregularities, or was carried out with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.(RBE)