THE closure orders against business establishments were issued by the Cebu City Government, yet no other elected official, except for the mayor, has spoken in public about it.
Mayor Tomas Osmeña ordered the closure of these business establishments in line with his policy to strictly implement City regulations on taxes and permits. Primary rule was on the requirement of a business permit for an establishment to operate in the city.
Osmeña explained his position in press conferences and posts on social media, challenging even those who contradicted him to present evidence on their business permit applications. It started turning personal Friday when members of the Dionson family of Rico’s Lechon made public what they thought was the root of their conflict with a member of Osmeña’s family.
Enrico Dionson, Rico’s Lechon owner and chief executive officer, raised the angle of a personal vendetta behind Osmeña’s actions. He said the City Government started putting pressure on them after his family decided to stop their partnership with Bea Villegas Osmeña, the mayor’s daughter-in-law. Villegas-Osmeña owned 30 percent of the Rico’s branch in Barangay Mabolo that was closed by City Hall last August 2 for operating without a business permit. Another Rico’s outlet, along N. Escario street, was also closed that day.
Dionson said the family decided last July to end the partnership with Villegas-Osmeña. Then, they started receiving notices and a show cause order. As to their business permits, he said they relied on their partner’s bookkeeper to work on them.
Mayor Osmeña, in Facebook posts, denied the claim of personal vendetta and said his daughterin-law even reminded the Dionsons several times to comply with City requirements. The mayor added that the partnership was entered into by Villegas-Osmeña when she was still single or before she married the mayor’s son, Miguel.
There is the personal aspect to the controversy and then there’s the mayor’s position that he is justified in going after the Dionson business outlets for rule violations. That personal spin could dominate discussions on the conflict unless City Hall insists it was a local government move and other elected officials such as Vice Mayor Edgardo Labella and the councilors speak out on the issue.
If it were true that a business transaction gone sour was involved in this conflict between the Dionsons and City Hall, then other officials must speak out and address any alleged abuse of power.
If they agreed the closure orders were valid, without malice, and made by following procedures on violations, then these other officials should say so and, in the process, support the position of the mayor.
The city’s elected officials, except for Osmeña, have been quiet so far with only department heads explaining the bases for the closure orders.
These officials’ silence could lead to wrong interpretation on where they stand, what position they believe in, in this controversy.