OCT. 3, 2024 was the third day of filing of certificates of candidacy for the 2025 elections. It was also the day the Cebuano public learned that the incumbent mayors of two of Cebu's three highly urbanized cities had been dismissed from service by the Ombudsman. Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama, who had been on a six-month preventive suspension since May, and Mandaue City Mayor Jonas Cortes, who only last month started serving a one-year suspension, had been dismissed!
Mayor Rama was preventively suspended over a case of four City Hall employees who were unceremoniously reassigned and left unpaid for months. The dismissal order stems from Cebu City Hall's hiring two brothers of Rama's wife. Nepotism, the Ombudsman concluded.
As for Cortes, the one-year suspension is the penalty meted out for the mayor's appointment of an unqualified officer in charge of one of the city departments. The dismissal is for the inaction of the city government over environmental and other violations of a cement batching plant.
Are these orders from the Ombudsman's office politically motivated, the result of powerful personalities using the office to get rid of their rivals? Or are they the just and deserved consequences of serious violations committed by Mayors Rama and Cortes?
This is the Philippines, so the answer likely depends on whose side you are on. Mayors Rama and Cortes obviously, as established by the Ombudsman's investigations, violated certain rules and laws. However, the penalty — dismissal plus the accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from holding public office — seems excessive and harsh. Rama and Cortes are not criminals. Many of us can point to officials who have committed more and worse infractions, yet they sit comfortably in their positions of power. But that, of course, isn't an excuse for, at best, neglecting one's sworn duties or, at worst, deliberately breaking the law.
Just last September 19, the Ombudsman surprised Cebuanos when a previous guilty verdict against former Cebu City mayor Tomas Osmeña was reversed. A complaint for obstruction of justice was filed in August 2018 by then-Cebu City Police Director Col. Royina Garma against then-Mayor Osmeña. The Ombudsman only last February ordered Osmeña to pay a fine equivalent to a year's salary. Intriguingly, the reversed decision was made known on the very same day that Osmeña appeared at the quad committee in Congress to testify against Garma.
In Philippine politics, politicians come and go. Some get swept away by the political tide or tsunami. Some sit out the storm, others claw their way back. Never say die, but there is also no guarantee of a forever.
Political winds are unpredictable; lightning from a clear blue sky happens. Paul Gutierrez, appointed in May 2023 by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to run the Presidential Task Force on Media Security (PTFoMS), was struck by such lightning. His name came up during the first quad committee hearing (August 16) when former Customs intelligence operative Jimmy Guban claimed Gutierrez was sent to warn him (Guban) against implicating Paolo Duterte and other Davao-based personalities in a 2018 multi-billion-peso shabu smuggling controversy. Gutierrez vehemently denied Guban's accusation.
A PTFoMS no more?
A month later, Gutierrez was informed by Malacañang that his term as executive director of the PTFoMS had "expired." He had obviously become a liability to the appointing power even if Guban's allegation remains unverified.
With the departure of Gutierrez, the men and women appointed with him were also shown the exit door. In other words, there is no PTFoMS at this moment, a source told me.
The PTFoMS is far from perfect. It has made mistakes, and it has not done enough. But that is to be expected from a small office that was created by the President and a mere extension of Malacañang. Whatever the intentions and findings of such a task force, it can never stray far from its master. The office and its staff must at all times protect the interest and image of Malacañang promote and defend its policies and programs.
Yet, despite these obvious limitations, the PTFoMS has still managed to make a difference. It could not always publicly take credit as that could offend some administration allies or other important people. But I know a few media practitioners who faced difficult, if not dangerous, situations for whom a call or text from PTFoMS made a difference. The knowledge that the executive director, his chief of staff, or some other personnel were just a text away has been an assurance for some of us.
We have entered the hottest political season. The stakes have been raised. Journalists are at risk of getting caught in the middle of intense political rivalries. Malacañang must demonstrate that it is committed to promoting the safety of media workers. One measure would be to immediately reactivate PTFoMS with competent and committed people.