08/09/2026
๐ง๐๐ ๐ ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ง ๐๐๐๐กโ๐ง ๐๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐ง ๐๐ก 2017?
๐ง๐๐๐ก ๐ช๐๐๐ง ๐ช๐๐ฆ ๐ง๐๐๐ง ๐ข๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ข๐๐จ๐ ๐๐ก๐ง?
There is something deeply troubling when an elected official stands before the City Council and declares, as if it were an established fact, that former Mayor Felipe โIpeโ Remollo never had a plan to construct a new public market.
Really? Because an official 2017 document says otherwise. And not merely in some vague, speculative way.
The document shows that during the Remollo administration, there was already a plan to address the condition of the public marketโincluding the possibility of demolition and construction of a new facility. More importantly, the document itself acknowledges that the existing market was suffering from several structural defects serious enough to call for its demolition.
๐ฆ๐ผ ๐ต๐ผ๐, ๐ฒ๐
๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐น๐, ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฎ๐ป๐๐ผ๐ป๐ฒ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ผ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐๐บ๐ฎ๐ด๐๐ฒ๐๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ โ๐ป๐ผ ๐ฝ๐น๐ฎ๐ป๐โ?
Was the 2017 document imaginary? Did it disappear from the city's official records? Or is someone simply hoping that people have forgotten?
This is where the issue stops being about political camps and becomes a question of truth, public records, and intellectual honesty.
A councilor is entitled to criticize a former administration. He is entitled to question its decisions. He is entitled to argue that its plans were inadequate, delayed, or poorly executed.
๐๐๐ ๐ต๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ถ๐๐น๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ผ ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ต๐ถ๐๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ ๐๐ถ๐บ๐ฝ๐น๐ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ต๐ถ๐๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฑ ๐ถ๐ ๐ถ๐ป๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ถ๐ฒ๐ป๐.
If an official document from 2017 clearly establishes that the condition of the market had already been recognized as a problemโand that the construction of a new market had already been contemplatedโthen saying that there were no plans at all is not merely a difference in political interpretation.
It is a statement that demands an explanation.
Why say there were no plans when there was a documented plan?
What is the purpose of denying something that is already on record?
Is it to make the previous administration look completely indifferent to the market's condition?
Is it to create the impression that the current administration inherited the problem out of nowhere?
Or is it simply another attempt to rewrite the past so that today's narrative looks cleaner?
Because if that is the strategy, it is insulting to the intelligence of Dumaguetnons.
People may forget speeches. They may forget press conferences. They may even forget political slogans.
But documents don't forget.
And government records have an annoying habit of surviving political narratives.
The public market issue deserves a serious discussionโits structural condition, the need for reconstruction, the consultations with vendors, the cost, the financing, the relocation arrangements, and the impact on thousands of people whose livelihoods depend on it.
What it does not deserve is historical revisionism.
If Mayor Ipe Remollo had already recognized the market's structural deficiencies in 2017 and had already contemplated its demolition and replacement, then give credit where it is due.
If his administration failed to move the project forward, say that.
If the plan was incomplete, say that.
If there were political, financial, technical or administrative reasons why it did not happen, explain those.
๐๐๐ ๐ฑ๐ผ๐ป'๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ป๐ผ ๐ฝ๐น๐ฎ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐๐ฏ๐น๐ถ๐ฐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฑ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐.
๐ง๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐ป๐๐ฎ๐ฏ๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐๐.
That is narrative engineering.
And when public officials begin selecting which parts of history the public is allowed to remember, we have every right to ask --
What else are they leaving out?
Dumaguetnons deserve the truthโnot a version of history conveniently edited for political consumption.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ธ๐ฒ๐ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฎ ๐ป๐ฒ๐ ๐ฏ๐๐ถ๐น๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ด.
๐๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐๐ฏ๐น๐ถ๐ฐ ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ป ๐บ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ ๐ฎ ๐ด๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ฑ๐ผ๐ฒ๐ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ผ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐บ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐๐ต ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฟ๐๐๐ต ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฟ๐๐.
Via Negros Oriental Express BALITA