IF
I know at least two songs that have for their title the word IF. One was popularized by Jerry Vale, with the first lines of its lyrics saying "If I were a king, I'd be but a slave to you." The other song was by a group called Bread, with the introductory the lyrics: "If a picture paints a thousand words."
I remembered these songs when I saw a video of an incident between Mayor Tomas Osmeña and a deputy sheriff. IF I were to write a story from the news report on TV, I would describe the act of a king attacking and humiliating his vassal.
There could be a cause of action IF the vassal decided to go to court. He was doing a sheriff's job of implementing a court order. El Cid (what a coincidence!) was performing his function. One who believed that the sheriff went beyond the limits of the court order (like he was dismantling homes outside of the property in litigation), should ask the court to stop the sheriff. But not just anyone can get such relief. He must have this requirement, called in law as party in interest, to mean the owner of the property not involved in the court action but settlers that face the threat of demolition.
IF, as reported, the property is owned by the provincial government, the province should be the one to go to court for an order directing the sheriff to desist from demolishing the structures there. The mayor is not the province, and neither an officer of that local government unit. Meaning, he had no business interfering with what the sheriff was doing. Not even the doctrine of "self help," as we know it in Civil Law, was available to him.
It is a good thing that the vassal can just allow a repulsive transgression committed against him and in total disrespect of his minor office, to pass unpunished. I do not think he was intimidated. I can say the sheriff must be a decent man to run after a person wrapped in a coat of arrogance and armed with pretentious knowledge. I cannot say the same attribute of decency to the king who assaulted the vassal.
Let us look closer at the root of the problem. There was nothing wrong what the court did. Certainly, the judge decided after evaluating the evidence. Neither was the sheriff erred in executing the decision. The problem is much deeper. Mayor Osmeña came into power in 1988. He has been at the helm of the city government for roughly 30 years, save some short interruptions. Yet, he has done very little, if at all, to stop the squatters, now called informal settlers.
Cebu City continues to grow in population. People from all over the country find Cebu a city where to look for jobs, do business, or both. But because it has no more space available, many resorted to squatting. Osmeña failed to address this issue effectively and permanently. So, IF there are thousands of informal settlers descending upon, intruding into, and occupying government or privately owned land, it is the failure of the mayor in understanding the gamut of the situation. That is the problem.
The mayor's act has worsened the problem. People will now be emboldened to usurp vacant lands because he, for probably no other reason than getting votes during election, tolerates such illegal intrusion. Worse, when land owners seek to recover their property, they are stymied because even the court's demolition orders could be stopped by the king.
Cebuanos must see this situation. Perhaps, the next time the mayor asks for our votes, we consider his failure in leadership.
- Latest
