For “Abuse of Power” BOPK dads want Rama probed

CEBU, Philippines - The Bando Osmeña Pundok Kauswagan (BOPK) councilors all voted to have their colleague and former ally, Councilor Eduardo Rama, formally investigated for alleged abuse of power.

In a committee report, Councilor Sisinio Andales, who chairs the Committee on Laws, suggested that the complaint of Cogon-Pardo barangay Captain Eugenio Gabuya be filed before the Office of President Benigno Aquino III.

Gabuya , in a letter to the council last October 1, asked for Rama to be investigated for alleged abuse of power for replacing three garbage collectors without the captain’s knowledge.

Gabuya insisted that being the barangay chairman, he is the appointing authority. He also asked the council to reinstate the three garbage collectors whom Rama terminated and to release to their August honoraria.

Based on the complaint of Gabuya, Andales cited Section 60 of the Republic Act 7160, which provides appropriate action for erring officials as basis for the matter to be brought to President’s attention.

“In Section 60 of RA 7160 provides that an elective official may be disciplined, suspended or removed from office on any of the grounds enumerated in the said section including “abuse of authority.” It is also provided than an elective local official may be removed from office on the grounds enumerated above by order of the proper court,” the committee report reads.

The committee on laws further said that Section 61 of the Local Government Code provides that a verified complaint against an erring elective official of a province, a highly urbanized city, an independent component city, shall be filed before the Office of the President.

Councilor Jose Daluz III, a lawyer and one of the few Team Rama allies in the council, raised his objection to the committee report saying that House Rules prohibit the referral of any complaint against a councilor to any committee.

Councilor Edgardo Labella, also allied with councilor Rama, said the committee report is unnecessary, if not uncalled for, since the council’s only basis is a letter and not a verified complaint.

“With all due respect to my fellow councilors, there should be verified complaint filed under oath,”Labella said.

“I also agree with councilor Rama that the privilege to hire carries with it the privilege to fire. In as much as it is the mayor who is the appointing authority, it is also the prerogative of the mayor to fire the person he appointed. So I am interposing my objection and I cannot agree with the committee report,” Labella added.

Daluz said that since it is not a verified complaint, any council committee cannot just take it up and make it part of its function to comment on the unverified complaint.

“It was referred to the committee and the committee should have been prudent not to take it up. Every member of the council can now be subjected to such abuse for just a letter. Even asking the respondent to answer in the letter complaint is not found in the committee report,” Daluz said.

Andales said that the committee clearly states that it should be referred to the complainant first to satisfy the requirement under RA 7160, which among others, required that there should be a verified complaint.

Mayor Michael Rama refused to comment on the issue involving his nephew. He said the matter should be left to the council or he may be accused of favoring a relative.

But he said that as a lawyer and a former Vice Mayor, any complaint against a member of the council is first referred to the ethics committee and not directly to a higher court.

“There is such a thing as exhaustion of administrative remedies before you go to the President,”Mayor Rama said. – (FREEMAN)