WHAT HAPPENED. Last Tuesday, April 14, 2026, the Cebu City Council voted to deny accreditation to ACTIEF (Asian College of Technology International Educational Foundation) Pit-os Campus owned by the family of Councilor Jose Lorenzo Abellanosa.
Councilor Abellanosa is affiliated with BOPK (Bando Osmena Pundok Kauswagan), minority in the City Council though it holds the top positions of mayor and vice mayor.
The committee on laws, led by Atty. Mikel Rama, son of former mayor Mike Rama, had recommended the rejection, citing a clutch of reasons, including allegedly un-submitted documents and “potential” violation of ethics.
BOPK promptly sniffed political motive. And raised pity-the-scholars issue involving students who cannot enroll at the ACTIEF branch in the mountains.
POLITICS MUST ALWAYS BE FACTORED IN. BOPK and its rival Barug, splintered into Mike Rama and Raymond Garcia groups, have been and will be at each other’s throat in the runup to 2028.
Of course, the issue is tainted with politics. That should be a “given” in such situations, each camp expected to plot and execute political moves that would enhance or protect their respective interests.
But we may look at the contrasting reasons for and against the accreditation of a school owned by a stalwart political family.
RULES/REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROGRAM. [1] The scholarship program needs rules, which the City Council presumably had adopted and wants enforced.
[] Fairness requires that the same rules apply to every school that wants to join the project, as suppliers of the education the scholars seek and for which the City Government pays.
[] The committee on laws cited reasons other than non-compliance of requirements by ACTIEF. It didn’t have to but the committee must believe that the other reasons strengthen its decision.
APRIL 14 VOTE NOT FINAL, BAR ON ACTIEF NOT PERPETUAL. The pro-ACTIEF camp could’ve asked for the City Council to put off the plenary vote until the school will have complied with all the requirement/s.
That way, insistence on the vote would’ve been seen by the public as arbitrary and cruel. The scores of students who were at the City Council session would’ve valid reason to display their sentiment in the internet.
Besides, there must be other schools (24 or so others) to which they can go instead. If they reside in the mountains, transportation allowance is required by the program to be provided.
BOPK critics say the party insisted on a vote instead of requesting for more time to comply with the requirements.
THAT ‘POTENTIAL’ VIOLATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. The City Council’s committee on laws included in its list of reasons for rejection the fear that accrediting ACTIEF might bring charges of conflict of interest, not just against Councilor Abellanosa but also the other councilors who’d approve it.
How valid is the argument of a potential conflict of interest? Those rooting for ACTIEF, including Vice Mayor Tomas Osmeña, say the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Appeals struck down the Ombudsman’s dismissal from service as well as the charge of corruption against Bebot Abellanosa.
The new accreditation, being sought with another Councilor Abellanosa in the legislature, should not be a problem. Or so the school’s defenders contend.
SANDIGANBAYAN MAY HAVE WRONGLY VIEWED JOB OF CITY COUNCIL. The anti-graft court in its January 2017 ruling agreed with Bebot Abellanosa’s argument that the City Council resolution authorizing the city mayor (Mike Rama) to sign a contract with ACTIEF was a “mere expression of sentiment or opinion.”
A mere authority, the ruling concurred. Not the “operative transaction or act” which “ultimately fell on the mayor.”
No discretion was involved in the City Council resolution, the Sandiganbayan ruled.
The defense that got Bebot off would assume that the City Council had nothing to do with the transaction. Which might not convince many of us, since the deal actually and legally wouldn’t have happened without legislative approval.
No transaction or appropriation will be lawfully perfected without the say-so of the City Council, where a councilor pushing the right buttons can push things through.
The Sandiganbayan nine-year-old ruling apparently has not removed present-day jitters among the incumbent councilors who aren’t comforted by that defense logic the anti-graft court adopted from the defense.
C.A. DWELT ON CONDONATION, NOT GUILT. As to the Court of Appeals December 2017 decision on the administrative charges against Bebot Abellanosa, it dwelt more on the condonation doctrine.
Meaning, it dealt with the question whether Bebot should be penalized: less on the guilt of the accused than on whether he must be punished. Should the penalty of dismissal from government service and perpetual disqualification from public office be imposed?
The crucial issue was no longer whether it was an offense or not. If it was a crime, Bebot’s reelection after it was committed -- by the same constituents if not the same office – condoned it. Forgiveness may remove the penalty but won’t wipe out the crime.
THIS RHUBARB OVER THE CITY’S SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM may instruct councilors on awareness of conflict of interest (which can be legal and yet still be morally wrong), the role of oversight by the local legislature regarding transactions that involve public funds, and the need for calm and sobriety in conversation or debate on matters of public welfare tangled in competing political interests.