‘What conflict of interest?’
Sandiganbayan panel redefines meaning of public officials wearing two hats: Bebot Abellanosa could, so they can
How could there have been an “obvious” and “clear” conflict of interest in the administrative aspect and yet was not found in the criminal aspect of a case?
The Sandiganbayan’s Jan. 27 decision, announced last Monday, threw out the charge against Cebu City south Rep. Rodrigo Abellanosa, saying he had no “discretion” in Cebu City’s multi-million-peso scholarship program. Did the court look at the conflict-of-interest element, in which he wore two hats, as councilor pushing the deal and as school owner benefiting from it?
‘Trial needed’
A full-blown trial was needed but the Sandiganbayan dismissed the case without conducting one. Which might have shown:
--Bebot wasn’t just a member of the City Council that approved the contract, he was vice chairman of education committee and chairman of social services committee, which set up the program;
--He was the top honcho and principal owner of Asian College of Technology and its sister school ACT International Education Foundation that were paid P51.106 million and billed the city for P119.75 million more.
‘Obvious, clear’
Jess Vincent de la Pea, Visayas ombudsman investigation & prosecution officer, noted in his finding that Bebot had “directly or indirectly, material or pecuniary interest” and benefited from the deal. “Obvious,” he said. And De la Pea’s finding was affirmed both by the local ombudsman and its cental office, which led to the filing of the criminal case.
But Sandiganbayan division chose not to find out by trial (1) whether the then councilor really had no “material interest” in the deal and (2) whether the mayor had the sole discretion to enter into the contract and would’ve signed it even without the councilors’ approval.
Not resolved
In Bebot’s and similar cases involving public Officials that are not heard or tried, question of guilt or innocence is not resolved in the public mind.
And the wrong signal is given to lawmakers: they can wheel-and-deal for personal profit in the legislature as part of their right, in the court’s argument, to express their “sentiment or opinion.”