ILOILO — Iloilo Provincial Information and Community Affairs Office (PICAO) chief Nereo Lujan has asked Gov. Arthur Defensor Jr. to dismiss allegations against him over his social media activities, arguing that the complaint failed to identify the specific posts, statements and evidence that could establish administrative wrongdoing.
Lujan made the plea in his written response to a show cause order issued by Defensor following a Sept. 24 letter-complaint filed by Iloilo City councilor Nene Dela Llana.
The complaint accused Lujan, among others, of allegedly “peddling fake news” against the Iloilo City Government, making Facebook posts “almost every day during office hours,” seeking the “destruction of the good reputation of the Iloilo City Government,” and imputing corruption and inefficiency to the city government, its officials and personnel.
But Lujan maintained that the accusations, as presently framed, are too general and lack sufficient particulars for him to intelligently and meaningfully answer.
“However, the complaint does not identify which particular attached printout or Facebook post allegedly constitutes ‘fake news.’ Neither does it identify the particular statement in any of these posts that is allegedly false, much less state what the true facts supposedly are or the factual basis for characterizing the statement as false,” Lujan said in his explanation.
“I cannot meaningfully explain or refute an allegation of falsity when the complainant has not identified the particular statement alleged to be false and the factual basis for asserting its falsity,” he added.
GOVERNOR TO DECIDE
Provincial Legal Officer Atty. Dennis Ventilacion said Defensor himself signed the show cause order requiring Lujan to submit an explanation within three working days from receipt.
The order was served through the Human Resource Management and Development Office headed by Atty. Renee Valencia.
Ventilacion said the governor will determine, based on the evidence and Lujan’s response, whether to dismiss the complaint or give it due course. If sufficient evidence exists, a formal administrative charge may be filed against the PICAO chief.
‘NO SPECIFIC POSTS
Lujan also challenged the allegation that he made Facebook posts “almost every day during office hours,” saying the complaint did not identify which posts were supposedly published while he was officially at work.
“Thus, on the face of the documents submitted, there is no sufficient basis to determine that any particular post was made during official working hours. Nor does the complaint specify the dates and times on which I supposedly engaged in the alleged activity while I should have been performing official duties,” he said.
He similarly questioned the accusation that his social media activity was intended to destroy the reputation of the Iloilo City Government, saying the complaint did not identify the particular post, statement or factual circumstances supporting such an intent.
Lujan argued that criticism, commentary, satire, sharing of information or discussion of government affairs cannot automatically be characterized as an attempt to destroy the reputation of a government institution without identifying the statements involved and establishing the factual basis for the accusation.
“Likewise, while the complainant alleges that he have imputed the City Government, the Mayor, councilors and employees as ‘corrupt and inefficient,’ the complaint does not identify the specific statement or post in which he supposedly made such an imputation. An allegation of corruption is materially different from criticism of government policy, criticism of the performance of public officials, satire, commentary, or the sharing of information concerning matters of public interest. These should not be treated as interchangeable without first identifying the particular words complained of.”
QUESTIONS ‘COLLECTIVE PROOF’
Lujan further noted that Dela Llana’s Sept. 24 letter was not subscribed and sworn to as an administrative complaint, while the attached printouts were allegedly not verified or authenticated as to their source, completeness, context, or dates and times of publication.
“While I recognize that the Show Cause Order states that the proceedings are being initiated motu proprio, these circumstances are nevertheless relevant in determining the evidentiary weight that may properly be accorded to the allegations and attachments,” he said.
He also rejected the suggestion that the numerous social media posts attached to the complaint could be treated as “collective proof” of inappropriate conduct.
“A collection of social-media posts does not become ‘collective proof’ of administrative misconduct merely because the materials have been submitted together. Each allegation must still be correlated with the specific post or statement allegedly constituting the offense and with the evidence supporting that allegation.”
Lujan stressed that the need for specificity becomes more important because the show cause order raises the possibility of administrative liability under civil service laws, rules and regulations.
“Before I can fairly be required to answer whether a particular act constitutes conduct inconsistent with my duties and responsibilities as a public servant, the act complained of must first be identified with reasonable specificity,” he said.
‘SPECIFY THE EVIDENCE’
Lujan said he was prepared to answer specific allegations and explain the context and factual basis of any statement properly attributed to him, but argued that he should not be forced to guess which among the numerous attached posts supposedly constituted fake news, were posted during office hours, imputed corruption or inefficiency, or were intended to damage the city government.
“To require me to answer such generalized accusations would necessarily compel me to guess at the precise acts for which I am being called to account. Neither should the mere attachment of printouts or screenshots be taken,without further proof, as establishing all of the complainant’s conclusions regarding their authorship, time of publication, falsity, context, intent, or administrative character. These are matters that require appropriate factual substantiation.”
He asked that before any adverse administrative finding is made, the complainant be required to identify each post or statement being questioned; specify the allegedly false statements and the basis for declaring them false; establish which posts were allegedly made during office hours and their actual publication times; and identify the statements supposedly intended to damage the city government’s reputation or impute corruption or inefficiency.
“Pending such specification and substantiation, I respectfully submit that the generalized allegations and attached printouts and screenshots, standing alone, do not provide sufficient factual basis upon which to conclude that I committed the acts attributed to me or that administrative action against me is warranted,” Lujan said.
He clarified that his explanation was submitted without prejudice to his right to file a more specific and substantive response should the statements, posts, dates, times, acts and corresponding charges be properly identified./PN
