Labella says relationship with Rama remains strong
CEBU CITY, Philippines — Cebu City Mayor Edgardo Labella assured the public that he and Vice Mayor Michael Rama are in good terms.
“Kami ni Mike Rama, murag manag-igsuon and even brothers naay differences once in a while. But at the end of the day, our relationship remains strong,” said Labella.
(We with Mike Rama, we’re like brothers and even brothers have differences once in a while.)
The two officials have exchanged heated words through social media in the past days over the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) response.
Despite the arguments, Labella still named Rama as the vaccine czar of the city to oversee the implementation of the vaccination plan in the coming months.
“Grabe man gud mig giagian together, atong ako pay iyang vice mayor. Daghan gyong gusto nga mabungkag for their own personal, vested interest. Pero lisod siguro tangtangon among solid foundation,” said the mayor.
(We’ve been through a lot together, since the time I was his vice mayor. A lot want to break us up for their own personal, vested interest. But it is difficult to destroy our solid foundation.)
Labella also assured the residents that they will continue to work together for the betterment of the city.
Members of the Barug-PDP Laban party expressed relief that the two top officials have fixed their relationship in the past days.
Councilor Prisca Niña Mabatid said that if the top officials of the city would continue to fight, this would be the downfall of the administration and a strain to their party.
She said that people may have been feeding the flames, those who are interested to see the two leaders fall apaart, causing the rift.
Mabatid added that conflicts like these should be resolved immediately to avoid problems for the party and the administration in the long run.
Subscribe to our regional newsletter
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.