Two ways of looking at the civil complaint filed by the Mandaue City Government, led by Mayor Luigi Quisumbing and Vice Mayor Carlo Fortuna, to recover a 3.5-hectare city-owned lot that was sold in 2015 to a private corporation at P50 per square meter:
[1] It must be aimed to embarrass Rep. Jonas Cortes, LQ’s rival for the seat of mayor in the May elections. Jonas forged the deal that is alleged to be “grossly disadvantageous” to the city. On its face, it looks like a sweetheart contract. Even at market price of three years ago, adjusted to inflation, the selling price seemed “ridiculously low.”
[2] It serves the city’s interest that steps are taken to annul the sale and get back the land. The lot, LQ says, can be used as site for the P1 billion housing project granted by President Duterte to Mandaue. Had LQ and Cortes not broken up and ended their 2016 alliance, the mess might not have been dug up. Those who take the side of the public must be cheering that LQ and Jonas had split up.
Personal motive
Despite the usual disclaimer that LQ’s move is apolitical and motivated by public good, the lawsuit is unavoidably seen as tainted with politics. If LQ and Cortes were political buddies now, as they were in 2016, would Quisumbing be going after his ally?
Had Jonas chosen to run for reelection as Cebu’s sixth district congressman and remain as LQ’s political partner, the mayor wouldn’t be scouring for bodies buried during Cortes’s tenure. Already, LQ is warning there are five or six more cases of suspected corruption that tainted Jonas’s nine-year reign at City Hall.
Personal motive in exposing a wrong won’t matter if it serves public interest. In the alleged corruption cases against Jonas and the questioned contracts, there is no whistleblower. But the LQ and Cortes political alliance must have slowed down the inquiry and the filing of cases in court.
It was not until last mid-year, after it became clear that Cortes was out to make a comeback for the mayor’s seat and challenge LQ, that the review of past City Hall contracts began in earnest.
It could take years
Drawbacks in filing the civil case include, for Quisumbing, the inability to prove during the campaign Jonas’s fault or liability in contracting the sale. Annulling the deal could take the courts years to resolve. A separate criminal case was reportedly filed but it still has to move. The accusation remains as allegation of wrongdoing until the
Supreme Court affirms the conviction.
One can only speculate how many votes LQ would gain after the promised exposure of serial scandals and filing of criminal charges, not just civil cases.
It depends on how the message is sent across and accepted by the city’s voters. Luigi’s message: Cortes as mayor deliberately or recklessly set aside the city’s interest by cutting deals that were disadvantageous to Mandaue. Jonas’s camp in turn argues that the deals were above-board and the city did not suffer any loss.
Whom would voters believe?
No reason required
In some races for local positions, voters are asked to give the “benefit of the doubt” to aspirants with pending cases or convictions that are not yet “final and executory.”
The voter does not have to wait for the court to make final judgment. He can make his own decision even though the court ruling is not yet concluded, as in “it’s not over until it’s over.” The candidate for public office is a person applying for a job. It is up to the voter to accept or shun the applicant, using whatever information he gets before going to the polls.
In voting against a candidate, “proof beyond reasonable doubt” or “preponderance of evidence” is not required. The voter doesn’t even have to offer any reason for his vote. paseares@gmail.com