A Cebu City resident has asked the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate Mayor Nestor Archival over an alleged conflict of interest involving his supposed ownership of property inside Monterrazas de Cebu.
Ed Rama filed a complaint-affidavit with the Ombudsman Area Office for the Visayas on Aug. 19, accusing Archival of violating Sections 3(e) and 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Rama also accused the mayor of grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Rama identified a 713-square-meter property in Monterrazas Subdivision, Barangay Guadalupe, as the basis of his complaint. He alleged that Archival and his spouse own Lot 6, Block 5 of the subdivision.
According to the complaint, the Cebu City Registry of Deeds recorded the property’s transfer certificate of title on Oct. 18, 2022, following its sale by Genvi Development Corp.
Rama also cited a tax declaration that placed the property’s assessed value at P47,060 and its market value at P2.3529 million. He attached certified copies of the title and tax declaration to his complaint.
Rama argued that Archival should have disclosed his alleged ownership and stayed out of official decisions involving Monterrazas.
He also said the mayor and his spouse could benefit from the development’s road network and other infrastructure because their property sits inside the subdivision.
The complaint cited Archival’s repeated opposition to calls for the city government to issue a cease-and-desist order against Monterrazas.
Vice Mayor Tomas Osmeña and several Cebu City Council members had called for the suspension of development activities, except work involving water-catchment facilities, amid concerns over flooding and the project’s mitigation measures.
During a June 17, 2026 interview cited in the complaint, Archival rejected the calls, saying the council had overlooked facts and that Monterrazas already had adequate catchment facilities.
Archival also said the Department of Environment and Natural Resources should determine the project’s environmental compliance.
He said his office had the authority to issue a CDO for developments of this nature but found no basis to issue one against Monterrazas, according to the complaint.
Rama argued that Archival’s public statements and actions amounted to official intervention in a matter connected to his alleged private property interest.
The complaint also cited several environmental and regulatory issues involving the development.
Rama pointed to a December 2025 disclosure from the DENR that it had filed a criminal case against the corporation behind Monterrazas for an alleged violation of Section 77 of Presidential Decree No. 705, or the Revised Forestry Code.
He also cited alleged violations of the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System and the Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004, including the alleged absence of a discharge permit.
According to the complaint, the DENR found 10 violations among the project’s 33 Environmental Compliance Certificate conditions.
Rama further alleged that only 11 of more than 700 trees recorded in 2022 remained despite the developer securing a tree-cutting permit.
The complaint noted that the DENR Environmental Management Bureau Region 7 later lifted its separate stoppage order in April 2026 after the developer reported completing remedial work on detention ponds.
Archival welcomed the lifting of the EMB order and cited it in supporting his position against a city-issued CDO, according to the complaint.
Rama invoked Section 3(e) of RA 3019, which penalizes public officers who, through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, cause undue injury or give a private party an unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference.
He also cited Section 3(h), which prohibits public officers from holding a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in a business, contract or transaction in which they intervene in their official capacity.
Rama argued that Archival’s alleged property ownership and his actions involving Monterrazas could constitute a violation of the provision.
He also alleged that Archival violated RA 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, by failing to disclose the alleged interest or recuse himself from matters involving the development.
Rama asked the Ombudsman to conduct a preliminary investigation and file criminal charges if it finds probable cause.
He also asked the agency to pursue administrative proceedings and, if warranted, dismiss Archival from government service with the corresponding accessory penalties.
Rama further sought Archival’s preventive suspension while the case is pending, citing concerns that the mayor could influence witnesses or interfere with the investigation.
The complaint does not establish Archival’s liability. The Ombudsman must still investigate and evaluate the allegations.
Photo courtesy of Nestor Archival / Facebook
Comments