This may be belated, but it still has topical timeliness, getting caught in the frenzy of dramatized criticisms in media against Mayor Jonas Cortes by the Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP).
They came out as “ghost busters” over job order personnel, “kabanay unlimited” big lies of City Hall “shadow government”, half-truths of no accomplishments. What’s perplexing is the Ombudsman-Visayas’ knee-jerk reaction, citing of “possible violation of the law on nepotism”.
Per a paper’s news item: “Ombuds to probe Cortes due to Fortuna’s report”, Deputy Ombudsman Pelagio Apostol “ordered assistant Ombudsman Virginia Santiago to open an investigation based on newspaper reports”. The latter purportedly said to “find out what possible violations the mayor has committed in allowing his relatives to influence the affairs of the city government”. As if Hizzoner did allow his relatives, as a fact?
Isn’t it precipitate for the Deputy Ombudsman to pick up bare and unsubstantiated indictments done by two SP detractors? Admittedly, the Ombudsman has sweeping investigative power over almost anything, even anonymous/unwritten/unsworn complaint, or media reports. But it doesn’t follow that for “politicking noise” to drum up “pa-pogi points” even on obvious non-issues – just unfounded and baseless craps bereft of factual specifics – have ipso facto be taken cognizance of.
For instance, the triangulated thrusts by the media of the “Kabanay Unlimited” tag on the Cortes Family, and five officials who are non-family are without factual probable grounds. The SP detractors themselves openly admitted that the slurred Cortes relatives are without appointments, no official or non-official powers, like using government offices, cars, gas, no cash advances/no salaries even one centavo a year, and zero perks or privileges.
So, how could there be an investigation for “possible violation of the law on nepotism”? Moreover, merely accusing the Mayor’s relatives “to influence the affairs of the city government” or “calling the shots” without factual leg to stand on, is absurd and hardly justifies an investigation. Neither is the unsupported canard of allegedly “delaying the implementation of City Hall projects and programs” a plausible basis for a probe. Assistant Ombudsman Virginia P. Santiago, however, reportedly refused in fairness to give further details as “they still have to study the reports to find out where to start in the investigation”.
To recall, was there no nepotism complaint against the predecessor of Mayor Jonas Cortes which the then Ombudsman-Visayas allegedly dismissed? But indeed, close-in Ouano Family circle had been appointed all with regular salaries except for four with P1 a year nominal pay, to positions skirting the prohibition on nepotism. And they enjoyed power and perks including use of offices, cars, gas, cash advances, and travel, among others.
The carpings against Hizzoner’s kin now, stand widely different in all aspects, as the latter have no hand in public governance and no power and perks as to “call the shots” or as, “shadow government”. This can be gleaned from the SP’s own self-negating allegations.
Finally, the fault-finders also cited in another news report that the slurred “Kabanay Unlimited” are likewise liable for violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713).
And yet, how fallacious, absurd, and illogical could they get? Since they admit the fact that Mayor Jonas Cortes’ family circle whom they have targeted are not officials and employees of City Hall, how could they even hint or allude to them as chargeable “public officials and employees” under RA 6713? In the same token, how could the Ombudsman investigate the Mayor on the basis of such fallacious premise, much less also for nepotism?
* * *
Email: lparadiangjr@yahoo.com