A Rama clarification

Recently, Cebu City Vice Mayor Michael Rama delivered a privilege speech in our Sanggunian Panlungsod on social justice in relation to the directive of President Rodrigo Duterte to clear the roads of obstructions. The vice mayor conceded that these impediments consisting principally of street and sidewalk vendors, have, since immemorial time, practically usurped the roads. Since such occupancy violates the public domain character of streets, they can be considered as nuisance per se and summarily abated. In his privilege speech, the vice mayor agreed that the president’s bold directive was founded on solid legal footing.

Rama was not however oblivious to the plight of the street and sidewalk vendors. Their well-being was in his mind. The vice mayor, citing constitutional provisions, said that these thousands of peddlers too, had a right to earn a living and the streets, quite sadly, are only places they know where to do their livelihood. Rama seemed to implore that the right of the state to rid the vendors from streets has to be balanced against the right of such marginalized merchantmen to their only known means of generating income with which to feed, clothe and educate their families. I found his exposition on balancing of interests anchored on social justice, in the very way I understood the legal philosophy in law school that I deemed it best to yield my column to a portion of his discourse.

Unfortunately for Rama, his message, in my perception, missed to resonate well with many of his constituencies counting among them noted broadcasters and respected columnists. I do not know where he failed. It escaped me why soon after his privilege speech; a cacophony of commentaries adverse to him came. Suddenly, the vice mayor became the goat as if he gave a discourse that was entirely different from the one I printed in my column. The chorus of harsh criticisms did not seem to jibe with the onus of his speech. Attempting to find out where the discrepancy was and motivated only by the desire to level the playing field, I sought his audience to clarify what he delivered before the city council.

In our meeting, Rama clarified two things. First, he responded to the accusation that “nag-mayor-mayor siya”. He never pretended to act as the mayor. It is not his office. His area of responsibility is mainly to lead the Sanggunian Panlungsod in crafting ordinances designed to support the programs of the mayor, in the most effective and efficient way he can. Secondly, on the issue of clearing the road, he did nothing more than ask the councilors to draft measures to soften the impact of displacement like finding a permanent market for them. His privilege speech said nothing more than that. It is not true, he claimed, that he would want the vendors to cling to their former vending sites.

In the end though, he was open to the idea of talking to those who misunderstood him and ferret out the truth.