28/10/2026
He has always been a supporter of our passion, recognizing its deep roots in our traditions and culture, while also acknowledging its potential to promote local tourism, stimulate economic activity, and support local communities.
Now that his actions are under public scrutiny, perhaps the least we can do is extend to him the same support he has shown us.
Support does not mean turning a blind eye to legitimate concerns. It means standing for fairness, refusing to spread misinformation, and helping ensure that his message is heard and understood in its proper context.
At a time when opinions can easily overshadow facts, let us choose truth over rumors, fairness over judgment, and responsible dialogue over unnecessary division.
After all, support is most meaningful not when everything is going well, but when someone is facing difficult times.
STATEMENT
Although I respect the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in connection with the administrative case filed against me, I respectfully disagree with its findings and conclusions. I believe that certain material facts and legal considerations warrant a closer examination, which is why I have filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
I have always recognized the importance of accountability in public service and the role of the Office of the Ombudsman in upholding integrity in government. At the same time, I trust that the process of reconsideration will provide an opportunity to further clarify the circumstances of this case and address the legal issues that, in my view, merit a second look.
THE CENTRAL ISSUE: WAS THE LETTER OF NO OBJECTION A FINAL SPECIAL PERMIT?
At the heart of this matter is a fundamental question: Was the Letter of No Objection (LONO) I issued on April 23, 2024, a final special permit authorizing the cockfighting event, or was it merely a response to a formal request for such a permit?
The LONO was issued in response to a letter dated April 15, 2024, requesting permission to hold a two-day Seven C**k Derby at the Fili NUSTAR and Casino Convention Center on May 23–24, 2024.
My position has consistently been that the LONO was not the final special permit. It expressly stated that the proposal was subject to existing laws, rules, regulations, and applicable conditions. It was not intended to be an unconditional authorization or a substitute for the required permitting process.
Before issuing the LONO, I sought the advice of the Cebu City Legal Office. Its legal opinion dated March 20, 2024, discussed the applicable legal framework and the requirements that had to be complied with.
The permitting process required compliance with the relevant provisions of Presidential Decree No. 449 and Cebu City Ordinance No. 1447, including the necessary approvals and other requirements. As explained in my Motion for Reconsideration, the applications did not complete the required process, did not reach my office for final approval, and did not result in the issuance of a final special permit by me.
These distinctions are important. A letter expressing no objection, subject to compliance with the law, should not automatically be equated with the final approval required by law. The legal character and effect of the LONO must be determined by its actual terms, the applicable regulations, and the evidence on record.
THE DILEMMA OF RESPONDING TO A FORMAL REQUEST
Government officials are expected to act on formal requests within the periods prescribed by applicable laws and regulations, including the Anti-Red Tape Act where applicable.
In this case, I responded to a formal request, but made the response expressly subject to compliance with existing laws, rules, regulations, and conditions.
This raises a legitimate question: if an official responds to a request with clear conditions, should that response automatically be treated as final authorization? Conversely, could an official face criticism for failing to act on a formal request within the prescribed period?
Public service requires officials to act responsibly, but accountability must also be grounded in the actual acts performed, the authority exercised, and the applicable law. The distinction between responding to a request and granting final approval deserves careful consideration.
ACCOUNTABILITY MUST BE BASED ON THE FACTS AND THE LAW
I respect the Office of the Ombudsman and its mandate to hold public officials accountable. At the same time, I believe that the circumstances of this case, the legal advice I sought before acting, the express conditions in the LONO, and the absence of a final special permit issued by me must all be considered in evaluating my administrative liability.
My Motion for Reconsideration presents these matters for review. I am pursuing the remedies available to me because I believe the facts and the law warrant a second look at the decision.
ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE DECISION
As I am no longer in public office, the suspension cannot be implemented in the ordinary manner. I understand that the decision provides for a corresponding fine in lieu of suspension, and I will address this matter through the appropriate legal remedies, including my pending Motion for Reconsideration.
While this decision is a difficult development, I am thankful that it does not carry the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office. I remain hopeful that, should the opportunity arise in the future, I may still have the chance to serve the public again.
For now, my focus is on seeking a fair reconsideration of the decision and allowing the legal process to take its course.
MY APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC
I ask the public to look beyond the headlines and consider the actual circumstances of this case. The issue is not simply whether a Letter of No Objection was issued, but what that letter legally meant, what conditions it contained, and whether it constituted the final authorization required under the law.
I remain confident that these questions deserve a thorough and fair review. I will continue to pursue the appropriate legal remedies with respect for the institutions involved and with faith that the facts, the law, and the full context of my actions will be given due consideration.
My position is clear: responding to a formal request through a conditional Letter of No Objection is not necessarily the same as granting a final special permit. That distinction is central to my appeal, and I trust that it will be carefully examined.
In the meantime, I have timely filed my Motion for reconsideration and I am hoping in Gods grace and time that this will be acted upon with justice and fairness.
mo
(c) File photo
