Archival mum on graft raps

Local

CEBU City Mayor Nestor Archival is withholding comment on the Ombudsman complaint filed against him over his handling of the controversial Monterrazas de Cebu development, saying he will respond only after receiving an official copy of the case.

Archival’s chief of staff, Kenneth Siasar, said Monday, Aug. 24, that the mayor had yet to receive formal communication from the Office of the Ombudsman regarding the complaint filed by former government official Ed Karlon Rama on Aug. 19.

“Since we have not yet received official communication coming from the Ombudsman relative to the filing of the case by Mr. Ed Rama, dili sa siya mohatag og official statement,” Siasar said.

Siasar said Archival would issue a statement once the complaint is officially served, including a chronology of events relevant to the allegations.

The mayor has also begun discussing possible next steps with his legal team despite not having received the complaint, Siasar said.

However, he declined to discuss the merits of the case, saying the administration had so far only seen reports about the complaint on social media.

“This is just an allegation on social media, and not given to us in terms of official communication,” Siasar said.

Asked whether Archival was denying Rama’s allegation that he and his spouse own property inside Monterrazas, Siasar declined to comment.

“I cannot comment on that,” he said, adding that the mayor’s office had not yet reviewed the contents of the documents that would be used in responding to the complaint.

Rama filed the complaint-affidavit before the Ombudsman Area Office for the Visayas in Cebu City, accusing Archival of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, or Republic Act 3019, as well as administrative offenses including grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service.

Rama asked the Ombudsman to conduct a preliminary investigation and, if probable cause is established, file the appropriate criminal charges against Archival.

He also asked the anti-graft body to initiate administrative proceedings and place the mayor under preventive suspension while the complaint is being resolved.

The complaint centers on Archival’s refusal to issue a cease-and-desist order against Monterrazas, an upland residential development in Barangay Guadalupe that has faced scrutiny over its environmental compliance and alleged contribution to flooding.

Rama alleged that Archival and his spouse own Lot 6, Block 5 of Monterrazas Subdivision, a 713-square-meter property covered by a transfer certificate of title entered in Cebu City on Oct. 18, 2022.

The complaint said the property, identified under Plan No. PCS-07-007993, was acquired from Genvi Development Corp. It also cited a tax declaration listing the property’s assessed value at ₱47,060 and market value at ₱2.3529 million.

Rama said certified true copies of the title and tax declaration were attached to his complaint.

He argued that the alleged ownership created a potential conflict between Archival’s private interest and his official actions involving the development.

Rama also alleged that Archival did not disclose his and his spouse’s ownership of the property or recuse himself while rejecting calls to halt development activities at Monterrazas.

The complaint cited Archival’s previous public statements on calls for a cease-and-desist order, including those made after Vice Mayor Tomas Osmeña and several members of the City Council sought a halt to development activities at Monterrazas.

Osmeña had called for a CDO covering development activities, except work directly related to water-catchment facilities, amid concerns over the safety of residents downstream.

Archival rejected the calls and said the city should consider the broader circumstances surrounding the development. He also pointed to documents submitted to the city indicating that required catchment structures had already been completed.

The mayor had maintained that the authority to issue a CDO rested with his office and that he saw no basis to issue one.

Rama cited Section 3(e) of RA 3019, which penalizes acts involving manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence that cause undue injury to a party or give a private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference.

He also invoked Section 3(h), which covers a public officer’s direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in a business, contract or transaction in connection with which the officer intervenes or takes part in an official capacity.

Rama separately cited RA 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, which requires public officials to avoid conflicts between personal interests and public duties.

The complainant argued that Archival’s alleged property interest, coupled with his position on the CDO issue, warrants an investigation into whether the mayor used his office in a manner that favored his private interest.

Rama asked the Ombudsman to impose dismissal and corresponding accessory penalties if administrative liability is established.

He also sought Archival’s preventive suspension while the proceedings are pending.(TGP)