text:
"You see the video. Who is harassing who? Did you ever hear the police raise their voices? In fact, the mayor was all high-pitch and he took over the checkpoint."--Cebu City Councilor Joel Garganera, in a May 1 SunStar story
Any mayor who still thinks he has "control and supervision" over the police in his local government unit must be anyone else but the mayor of Cebu City.
During the past few days, Mayor Tomas Osmeña has been publicly complaining of "harassment and terrorism" by the police: barangay captains allegedly threatened in a number of ways and a police checkpoint near his house allegedly directed at the mayor and his household. An incident involving candidate for vice mayor Mary Ann de los Santos also set off sparks of verbal exchange between police officials and the leaders of the city's ruling party BOPK.
"Control, supervision"
Tomas wouldn't have any illusion about having any influence over police movement in his city. "Control and supervision," no matter how limited, allows the mayor to have a say on fielding of troops. The city is, after all, his area and his constituents are the ones the PNP is tasked "to serve and protect."
Complicating what would've been an ordinary kink in PNP-LGU relations is that the people allegedly harassed and terrorized are leaders or supporters of the mayor and the councilor. And these occur in the heat of the political season, with the elections only a few days away. The partisan color may conceal or disguise true motive; public interest may be warped with political agenda. Councilor Joel Garganera and others in the rival Partido Barug believe the mayor is hyping things up for propaganda. City police chief Royina Garma complained that her police were being "harassed."
The harasser
And "who's harassing who"? (Or "whom," if you insist.) Not the police who didn't raise their voices; only the mayor's pitch soared, he said. Councilor Joel is right, if harassment is inflicted only by a loud and angry voice from a civilian official. The police wear the uniform and carry the guns; they have the capacity to wound and kill or drag one to jail. As PNP regional chief Debold Sinas was quoted as saying, "They're very lucky my men didn't shoot at them. It was a legitimate checkpoint." Legitimate and real scary.
In that sense, Tomas and Mary Ann cannot be the harasser and the police the "harassee." And it's not because the local leaders were unarmed and didn't have a band of gunfighters with them.
"What Tomas wants"
The mayor does not have the authority that he used to wield when the chief executive was anyone else but President Duterte. And the police chiefs in the region and the city now enjoy the confidence and support of the president their predecessors did not have.
If the conditions were like before, Tomas would've long sent Sinas and Garma packing back to Davao or banished to some far and obscure posting. And Sinas and Garma wouldn't be hostile; they would be fawning over the mayor. Remember the old line, "what Tomas wants, Tomas gets"?
Issue drowned out
But the current situation is abnormal, if not weird. Police officials don't quarrel with mayors, and vice versa. Not on the public stage, as if they were the protagonists in the election campaign, not Osmeña vs. Edgar Labella and de los Santos vs. Mike Rama.
The police checkpoints may be legitimate but the timing appears to be off and the way they're being conducted is questionable. The suspicion inevitably rears an ugly head. Candidates of the national administration, which controls the police, are in a bruising fight with Osmeña and his party mates over City Hall.
Meantime, debate on the more compelling issue—whether decades of Osmena governance have solved the city's major ills—is being drowned out by noise from the public officials' quarrel with the police.
SunStar website welcomes friendly debate, but comments posted on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of the SunStar management and its affiliates. SunStar reserves the right to delete, reproduce or modify comments posted here without notice. Posts that are inappropriate will automatically be deleted.
Do not use obscenity. Some words have been banned. Stick to the topic. Do not veer away from the discussion. Be coherent. Do not shout or use CAPITAL LETTERS!


text:
Iridomyrmex brunneus
|Iridomyrmex brunneus
|Scientific classification
|I. brunneus
|Binomial name
|Iridomyrmex brunneus
Forel, 1902
Iridomyrmex brunneus is common and widespread throughout Australia. At least in Western Australia, workers are often seen foraging on the trunks of eucalypts or fallen timber. Populations of the ant can persist in settled areas, and label data indicates it will enter dwellings, mainly in country towns (in Alice Springs it has been recorded as a 'house pest').
Workers of I. brunneus are medium-sized brown ants that may be easily confused with several other species, most notably Iridomyrmex minor and Iridomyrmex anceps. The easiest way to distinguish workers of this ant is to check the anteromedial clypeal process: in I. brunneus this is very weak to vestigial, whereas the process is a prominent triangle in both I. minor and I. anceps. Most I. brunneus workers also have erect genal setae (absent from many I. minor workers and almost all I. anceps workers). Characteristically, when a worker of I. brunneus is viewed in profile, the pronotum and mesonotum form an even curve, whereas the mesosomal outline in I. minor and I. anceps is less regular, being either more domed at the junction of the pronotum and mesonotum, or elongate and flattened (some populations of I. minor).
Keys including this Species
Distribution based on Regional Taxon Lists
Australasian Region: Australia (type locality).
Distribution based on AntMaps
Distribution based on AntWeb specimens
Check data from AntWeb
The following information is derived from Barry Bolton's New General Catalogue, a catalogue of the world's ants.
- brunneus. Iridomyrmex bicknelli r. brunneus Forel, 1902h: 469 (w.) AUSTRALIA. Raised to species: Heterick & Shattuck, 2011: 54. Senior synonym of fusciventris: Heterick & Shattuck, 2011: 54.
- fusciventris. Iridomyrmex gracilis var. fusciventris Forel, 1913g: 188 (w.) AUSTRALIA. Junior synonym of brunneus: Heterick & Shattuck, 2011: 54.
Type Material
- Iridomyrmex bicknelli brunneus: Lectotype (designated by Heterick & Shattuck, 2011), worker, Kalgoorlie, Western Australia, Australia, ANIC32-039031, Musee d'Histoire Naturelle Genève.
- Iridomyrmex bicknelli brunneus: Paralectotype (designated by Heterick & Shattuck, 2011), 7 workers, Kalgoorlie, Western Australia, Australia, Musee d'Histoire Naturelle Genève.
- Iridomyrmex bicknelli brunneus: Paralectotype (designated by Heterick & Shattuck, 2011), 1 worker, Kalgoorlie, Western Australia, Australia, Naturhistorisches Museum, Basel.
- Iridomyrmex gracilis fusciventris: Syntype, 1 worker, Mullewa, Western Australia, Australia, Musee d'Histoire Naturelle Genève.
- Iridomyrmex gracilis fusciventris: Syntype, 5 workers, Sea Lake, Victoria, Australia, Musee d'Histoire Naturelle Genève.
Worker Description. Head. Posterior margin of head weakly convex to planar, or planar to weakly concave; erect setae on posterior margin in full-face view set in a row; sides of head straight or weakly convex; erect genal setae present on sides of head in full-face view, or absent from sides of head in full-face view (one to a few small setae may be present near mandibular insertion). Ocelli absent; in full-face view, eyes set above midpoint of head capsule, or set at about midpoint of head capsule; in profile, eye set anteriad of head capsule; eye semi-circular, or asymmetrical, curvature of inner eye margin more pronounced than that of its outer margin. Frontal carinae straight, or convex; antennal scape surpassing posterior margin of head by 0.2–0.5 x its length. Erect setae on scape absent, except at tip; prominence on anteromedial clypeal margin projecting as blunt but distinct protuberance, or present as an indistinct swelling or undulation; mandible regularly triangular with oblique basal margin; long, curved setae on venter of head capsule absent. Mesosoma. pronotum moderately and evenly curved over its length. Erect pronotal setae moderate in number to numerous (6 or more) and longest setae elongate, flexuous and/or curved. Mesonotum straight, or evenly curved. Mesothoracic spiracles always inconspicuous; propodeal dorsum smoothly and evenly convex, or straight and long (half as long again as length of propodeal declivity); placement of propodeal spiracle mesad, more than its diameter away from propodeal declivity; propodeal angle weakly present or absent, the confluence of the dorsal and declivitous propodeal faces indicated, if at all, by an undulation. Erect propodeal setae moderate in number to numerous (6 or more), short and bristly. Petiole. Dorsum of node convex; node thin, scale-like, orientated anteriad. Gaster. Non-marginal erect setae of gaster present on first gastral tergite; marginal erect setae of gaster present on first tergite. General characters. Allometric differences between workers of same nest present. Colour foreparts tawny to dark reddish brown, upper vertex of head often darker than clypeal region and also mesosoma, legs same colour as mesosoma, but generally of a deeper shade, gaster dark brown. Colour of erect setae pale, whitish.
Measurements. Worker (n = 6)—CI 85–88; EI 27–28; EL 0.21–0.26; EW 0.16–0.20; HFL 1.26–1.56; HL 0.90–1.07; HW 0.76–0.94; ML 1.26–1.60; MTL 0.90–1.08; PpH 0.15–0.19; PpL 0.50–0.61; SI 122–133; SL 1.02– 1.20.

subset: commoncrawl