THEY were erroneously billed as "missing." They were not missing because they were recorded as having been donated by a food company that gave more than 16,000 live of chickens to the Association of Barangay Councils, through its president and Councilor Franklyn Ong, and another 20,000 live chickens to the other councilors led by Councilor Edu Rama.
An inventory and audit must be made to find out if any chicken could not be accounted for. Interestingly, no accusation of diversion of chickens, has been raised against Ong, a BOPK councilor. The continued clucking is over Edu Rama, a Partido Barug councilor. Partisan politics? Read on first.
The poultry meat donate to residents of the city who needed help amid the pandemic is yet to be officially inventoried and audited. One could say some chickens were diverted or stolen -- or "missing" -- only after verifying documents and other records of the dole-out.
Contrasting claims
Handlers of the donated food both claim they have a list of their respective beneficiaries. Those donated through Edu Rama, were allegedly sold, the two complaints say. Rama's reply to the first complaint -- that they were not missing and not diverted -- needs to be verified. The City Council listened to Edu Rama's side but didn't conduct an audit. Ong's claim of distribution to his beneficiaries may also be checked; only that no one's complaining against him, for now.
[1] Last July 23, news broke that a group of Sambag 1 residents filed before the Visayas deputy ombudsman criminal and administrative charges against Councilor Edu Rama by Marco Licinio "Bebot" Flores Gingoyon. Gingoyon stands as a real person, not fictitious, until evidence to the contrary surfaces.
[2] Last Thursday, August 27, media reported that one Jonel Saceda, said to be a resident of Barangay Labangon, filed a complaint also with the ombudsman's office for malversation of public property over the same donated chickens against Councilor Rama and one Rona Lapina.
Basic accusation
In both complaints, the basic allegation was that the councilor, with cohorts, sold the chickens instead of giving them to the beneficiaries.
The councilor last June 24 made a privilege speech before the City Council to answer the Sambag 1 complaint. This time, Rama told the media that politics has prompted the Saceda complaint.
The political motive won't be material if the accusation rests on strong evidence. Still, the claims of Rama and Ong have to be verified by independent audit.
Saceda reportedly included in his complaint affidavits of three former workers of the donor food company. "Bebot" Gingoyon's evidence is not yet known; it has not been publicized.
On Edu Rama's side, the claim is that he has receipts and sworn statements of beneficiaries. Ong reportedly also had the documents to prove actual distribution of the chickens.
The numbers of the litigated chickens ranged from 17,000 dressed chickens, alleged by Councilor Joy Young, to the 16,464 live chickens, which Rama admitted they received, had ordered dressed, and distributed from May 20 to 26. Rama said it would've cost the city P300,000 for dressing and storage but distributors offered their services for free.
The Rama chickens were apart from the 20,000 live chickens donated by the same food company through ABC's Councilor Ong.
Political? Doesn't matter
The accusation against Rama first came from Councilor Young who belongs to BOPK, arch-rival of Partido Barug that now dominates City Hall. It is not known if Bebot Gingoyon and Jonel Saceda are BOPK partisans and were induced by the opposition to sue or are plainly being good citizens.
Surrogate or disguised complaints though against one's political rivals is common among politicians on both sides. The motive of the complainant or even his actual existence as a person becomes immaterial if evidence of alleged offenses is strong.
Cause of the mess
It's not difficult to tag the cause of the mess.
Ong publicly acknowledged the donation of 20,000 chickens, with the ABC accepting the donation and thanking the donor. In contrast, Edu Rama and his group did not publicize the 16,000-plus chickens they received from the same donor. Neither the mayor's office nor the City Council formally accepted them. Probably, they thought they were handling the chickens in their private capacity, which could not be because they were entrusted to them as public officials.
Transparency obviously could've avoided the furor that embarrasses not just the councilors but also the mayor's administration. Worse, it has been a distraction in the midst of a terrible crisis.
Ong must have handled it better than Rama did. Yet Rama can survive possible prosecution and he and Ong may shed off the bad PR image if their respective explanation passes official audit.
The clucking from the public over those freaking chickens might finally die down.