[1] MAYOR, congressman back board member. Bogo City Mayor Maria Cielo “Mayel” Martinez Thursday, October 9, 2025 publicly expressed support to Provincial Board Member Celestino “Tining” Martinez III who was “attacked and bullied in social media” over his earthquake speech before the Cebu Provincial Board last Monday.
They misinterpreted Tining’s comment on the Capitol response to the September 30 earthquake, Mayor Mayel said. Critics confused “Where’s the provincial government?” with “Where’s the provincial governor?” Huge difference, the mayor said.
Also on Thursday, Rep. Vincent Franco “Duke” Frasco of Cebu’s fifth district said he stands with Tining Martinez, commending him for “speaking the truth” and condemning the online tirades against the board member.
The other takeaways from the controversy:
[2] What did PB Member Martinez’s rhetorical question slam? In his October 6 privilege speech, Board Member “Tining” Martinez
used a rhetorical question to criticize the local government’s handling of the crisis caused by the magnitude 6.9 earthquake, which struck north Cebu six days earlier.
The rhetorical device is used to provoke thinking even as it creates dramatic effect. A digital media news site knew its value, lifting Tining’s quote for its story headline: “Where’s the Provincial Government?”
That, to be sure, implied strong criticism of any or all of these: inaction, incompetence, or absence during the crisis or event.
Which particularly? Whatever news media audiences saw in the criticism, PBM Martinez actually did not refer to the physical absence of Capitol officials and personnel.
[3] Absence of responders was literal interpretation, easier to repel. Media consumers tend to interpret literally and may not bother to go deeper into nuance and context. When they heard or read about Tining’s question, many took that to mean Capitol people were “absent or acted as if they were not there.”
To Capitol officials and publicists, the first was the easiest to dispute and refute. (Ms. Harder, my English teacher, said one may dispute an accusation but may not be able to tear it down.) Refuting would require evidence, an independent assessment and finding.
Restituto Arnaiz, manager of Capitol’s Emergency Operations Center, promptly called a press-con, claiming that LGU officials and crews were “at Ground Zero on Day 1 and thereafter, 24/7.” Governor Pam Baricuatro later told the press that those who criticized alleged absence of Capitol responders must have been doubly quake-shocked.
[4] What Tining rapped was absence of coordination between Capitol and LGUs. Tining Martinez in his October 6 speech even mentioned the governor and two other Capitol officials, aside from himself, he being “part of the provincial government.”
A digital media story said Martinez “thanked the governor and other key officials for leading the response.”
At the same time though, the story said, the board member “lamented” that local officials, “moving forward,” were “still to receive clear communication or guidance from the Capitol.”
There it was, the alleged lack of coordination, or more precisely, “unclear coordination.” No specifics though were reported on the extent of adverse results from the “mismanagement” of the crisis. Yet the traffic congestion on the roads to the north presented graphic proof of it.
That lapse or omission later worsened in the eyes of critics, especially those sitting and watching on the other side of the political river, who described the “incompetence” as “sheer” and the “failure of leadership” as “utter.”
Tining, at least in his PB speech, didn’t go beyond lamenting over the “unclear coordination.”
[5] Most of Martinez’s speech answered social media detractors. What Tining said was part thank-you and praise to responders and donors of food and water and part disappointment and anger over internet comments.
The board member in fact spent more time explaining why Bogo City could not immediately respond to the needs of victims, citing the difference between earthquake (“like a thief in the night”) and typhoon, government requirements in procuring and accepting assistance, and the destruction that made LGUs like his city helpless, thus relying mostly on the Provincial Government for post-disaster logistics.
The criticism in the rhetorical question may explain why information was essential to Tining, as a member of the the provincial government and as an ABC leader who was pestered by fellow barangay captains, “What’s happening?”
Tining bewailed the confusion created by social media comments and reports that (a) provincial relief goods were distributed directly to barangays without notifying the city or town and that (b) LGUs outside Capitol were interfering with the distribution conducted by private individuals (“we did not”).
[6] However it came out, Tining prodded Capitol on a basic of Disaster 101. Which is, to address the problem of distributing the aid, along with the problem of securing and collecting the aid.
And the essentials that go with the process: communication lines and clear language. Plus, of course, a ground commander who keeps his or her cool and frees the mind of political interest or consideration, at least during the crisis.
[7] “Where’s the provincial government?” may as well be asked, disaster or none, whenever Capitol officials falter or fail in their job.
As to the trace of insult in the rhetorical question, it won’t serve its purpose if it does not sting. My political science teacher told me that.