The Sandiganbayan has denied the motions filed by former Cebu City mayor Michael Lopez Rama and three other accused to dismiss the graft charges in the P44 million waste disposal contracts in 2021.

In a resolution, the anti-graft court directed the prosecution to amend the criminal charge and make sure it contains “the ultimate facts constituting the elements of the crime charged."

Aside from Rama, also charged with violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, filed in October 2025 were bids and awards committee (BAC) members Lyndon Bernardo J. Basan, Janeses B. Ponce, and Dominic A. Dino.

The prosecution accused them of giving undue advantage to Jomara Konstruckt Corporation when they awarded P4,997,900 for the Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services of the 1,886 tons of solid waste; ACM Hauling Services in the amount of P4,963,860; and ARN Central Waste Management Inc. in the amount of P35 million.

In their motions, Rama, Basan, Ponce, and Dino argued that the informations (criminal charge sheets) do not constitute an offense, as the acts complained of were not particularly described.

They alleged that the informations only mentioned that they did not strictly comply with the procedures prescribed in Annex "H" of the 2016 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9184, the Government Procurement Reform Act, without specifically stating the exact provision they allegedly failed to comply with.

While the Sandiganbayan agreed that the confusion raised by the accused is "well-taken," the court pointed out that the charges should not be dismissed and instead be fixed.

The court declared: "The prosecution should not resort to the shotgun approach in crafting the Informations to be filed in the Court. Be that as it may, the Court cannot automatically quash the Informations as Section 4, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court instructions: 'If the motion to quash is based on alleged defect of the complaint or information which can be cured by amendment, the court shall order that an amendment be made.'"

It also pointed out: “The purpose of an Information is to afford the accused their right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. It is in pursuit of this purpose that the Rules of Court require that the Information allege the ultimate facts constituting the elements of the crime charged."

The nine-page resolution was written by Associate Justice Lorifel Lacap Pahimna with the concurrence of Associate Justices Georgina D. Hidalgo and Hans Chester T. Nocom.