Eastern Visayas Media Without Borders
by Rowel Montes
The temporary suspension of Job Order (JO) workers in Borongan City, announced on January 30, 2026, by the Office of the City Mayor through Acting Mayor Emmanuel Tiu Sonco, has continued to stir public debate—now further complicated by allegations surrounding the delayed action on the proposed 2026 annual budget.
Budget submission and alleged inaction
The Office of the City Mayor, under Mayor Jose Ivan Dayan Agda, formally submitted the proposed Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2026 to the Sangguniang Panlungsod on October 16, 2025. However, the budget was enacted only on December 23, 2025, leaving the city to operate under a re-enacted budget at the start of the new fiscal year.
It is now being alleged by some sectors that the then Vice Mayor—who presided over the Sangguniang Panlungsod at the time—deliberately failed to act promptly on the proposed budget. This perceived inaction, critics argue, may have contributed to the fiscal bottleneck now affecting hundreds of Job Order workers and essential city services.
While no official finding has yet established intent or motive, the belief that political considerations played a role has gained traction among the public, especially given the subsequent leadership transition.
In November 2025, Vice Mayor Emmanuel Tiu Sonco assumed the role of Acting Mayor. During this period, reports indicate that around 1,000 Job Order workers were hired across various city offices.
This sequence of events—delayed budget action followed by expanded JO hiring—has raised questions among governance observers. Under a re-enacted budget, the hiring of additional personnel not covered by previous appropriations has no legal funding basis, placing both the workers and the local government in a vulnerable position.
Legal framework: what the law allows
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) rules on re-enacted budgets are explicit:
Only appropriations for existing positions, statutory obligations, and essential operating expenses from the previous fiscal year may be disbursed.
New positions or newly hired Job Order workers are not funded, as no new appropriations exist to support them.
From a legal standpoint, therefore, the suspension of JO services is consistent with national budget regulations. However, the controversy lies not merely in legality, but in how the city arrived at this situation.
Political accountability and public perception
The memorandum issued by the Acting Mayor attributes the suspension primarily to the ongoing budget deliberations of the Sangguniang Panlungsod. Critics argue that this framing is incomplete and risks misleading the public by omitting two key points:
The earlier delay in acting on the proposed budget, and
The legal limitations imposed by DBM rules, regardless of council action.
If the allegation of deliberate delay holds weight, it would suggest that the current crisis is not an isolated administrative problem but the cumulative result of political maneuvering within city leadership, where fiscal processes became entangled with power transitions.
Human cost and service disruption
Lost amid the legal and political debate are the immediate consequences on the ground. Job Order workers form the backbone of many frontline offices, particularly the City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office (CDRRMO). Their suspension raises concerns over:
Continuity of disaster response and emergency operations
Livelihoods of workers who rely on daily or monthly compensation
Public safety, especially during periods of sustained rainfall and flooding
Structural issue exposed
The Borongan situation once again exposes a systemic issue in local governance: the heavy reliance on Job Order workers to perform core government functions, despite their exclusion from long-term security and budgetary protection.
Whether the delayed budget action was procedural, political, or a mix of both remains a critical question. What is clear, however, is that budget delays—intentional or otherwise—carry real consequences, and those consequences are borne first by contractual workers and ordinary citizens.
Public Sentiment: A City Caught in the Middle
Social media reactions reflect growing frustration and fatigue:
Legal-minded voices call for accurate framing, urging officials to explain DBM rules rather than assign blame.
Moral appeals demand an end to political conflict, emphasizing compassion, unity, and public service.
Political critics link the issue to voter responsibility in the next election.
Service-oriented concerns warn that sidelining JO workers jeopardizes disaster readiness and public welfare.
Together, these voices reveal a city anxious not only about jobs lost, but about trust lost—in institutions, processes, and leaders.
Moving forward
As Borongan City seeks to resolve the budget impasse, clarity and accountability will be crucial. Beyond passing the 2026 budget, there is a pressing need to:
Transparently explain the causes of delay
Clarify legal constraints to the public
Ensure interim measures for critical services
Reassess the city’s dependence on precarious labor arrangements
At stake is not just a budget, but the credibility of local governance—and the welfare of the people it is meant to serve.
