By DAVE SUAN ALBARADO

A systematic pay-to-play awards scheme targeting local government officials in Bohol province has been exposed after a municipal mayor publicly rejected what he called a “sham” honor and revealed years of solicitation attempts, prompting an official government warning about fraudulent recognition proliferating on social media.

Alburquerque Mayor Ritchie “Dondon” Buates publicly refused an award from the Civic Accountability Council and announced he would return it to the sender, igniting a firestorm of criticism against questionable award-giving bodies that have been targeting local officials throughout the province.

The Civic Accountability Council, which claims to be a “government organization” on Facebook, has only two followers and 14 following accounts on its social media page, raising immediate red flags about its legitimacy and reach.

“SORRY iuli nako ninyo ni ug kinsa mo nagpa siugda ani nga AWARD2,” Buates wrote in his Facebook. “Dili ko modawat ug dili apil ang mga Gov’t Agencies sa inyong gipasiugda na Award2.”

In English, the mayor said: “I am not going to receive said award whoever sponsored this.” He pointedly asked the organization: “Are you not cursed that my face is being invented through artificial intelligence?”

PATTERN OF SOLICITATION REVEALED

Buates detailed a pattern of award solicitation that stretches back years, revealing what appears to be an organized effort to extract money from local officials in exchange for manufactured honors.

The mayor recalled being approached at a gathering of mayors where representatives openly solicited payments in exchange for awards, with fees reaching as high as P25,000 pesos.

“I remembered a time in a gathering of mayors that some people approached him and his group and dangled the prospect of an award in exchange of considerations as much as P25,000,” Buates said.

In 2020, the scheme became even more brazen. 

Buates received communication from what purported to be a surveying firm that offered him not just an award, but the opportunity to select which specific honor he would prefer to receive.

“He was even allowed to choose which award to get,” Buates disclosed. “Of course, there is a consideration in exchange of the award.”

The mayor is scheduled to receive what is called the “Saludo Award” in April, though it remains unclear from which organization.

Even Buates’ wife, a town councilor who had served only six months in office at the time, received an award from a similar organization, further exposing the lack of credible evaluation criteria.

“How credible is the body in conferring awards to public officials like him?” Buates questioned, referring to the dubious selection process.

The mayor said no one in his town was surveyed prior to any awarding, and no government agency was involved in any selection process he knew of.

PATTERN EXTENDS TO OTHER OFFICIALS

Buates is not alone in his experience with questionable awards. 

Duero Mayor Al Taculad also received but did not accept an award from the same entity, according to a trusted aide, suggesting the scheme has targeted multiple officials across Bohol.

Catigbian Mayor Benjie Oliva publicly supported Buates’ decision to decline the award, indicating broader concern among local officials about the proliferation of fraudulent honors.

During his campaign period in 2022, Buates said the issue of paid awards had already surfaced. 

“While he was then a councilor he was made to buy a book prior to giving the award,” according to his account.

He posted communication letters from award-giving bodies that indicated specific amounts they wanted officials to pay, providing documentation of the pay-to-play scheme.

GOVERNMENT ISSUES FORMAL WARNING

The Department of the Interior and Local Government in Bohol responded to the controversy by issuing an official statement on Jan. 28, 2026, categorically denying any association with the awards circulating on social media and warning the public about fraudulent recognition.

“The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Bohol intends to inform the general public that in the pursuit of its mandate, the Department conducts various performance assessments on local governance and confers awards and incentives to performing Local Government Units (LGUs) that have exhibited exemplary performance in these performance audits,” the statement read.

The DILG said that it administers only 11 specific, legitimate awards based on rigorous evaluation criteria:

— Seal of Good Local Governance

— Good Financial Housekeeping

— Anti-Drug Abuse Council Functionality

— Peace and Order Council Functionality

— Local Legislative Award

— Seal of Child-Friendly Local Governance

— Local Council for the Protection of Children Functionality

— Local Council on Anti-Trafficking and Violence Against Women and Children Functionality

— Subaybayani Award

— Seal of Good Local Governance for Barangays

— Lupong Tagapamayapa Incentives Award

“Other than these, this level makes it clear that the Department is not associated with any of the awards proliferating on social media and categorically denies any involvement in such activities,” the DILG noted emphatically.

DILG Provincial Director John Mende said the agency does not recognize awards being conferred by questionable organizations and pledged to elevate the issue to higher offices for policy consideration and appropriate guidance.

“The DILG has awards that they confer to notable public officials and there are serious evaluations conducted on elected local officials,” Mende said, contrasting legitimate recognition with the pay-to-play schemes.

He said the matter “has been formally referred to higher levels of the Department for policy consideration and appropriate guidance.”

CALLS FOR GATEKEEPING MECHANISM

The DILG acknowledged receiving suggestions to establish a gatekeeping mechanism to limit and regulate the conferring of awards for local governance in order to ensure integrity.

“We understand that there is an apparent clamor to gatekeep the giving of awards and recognition in local governance,” the DILG statement said. “Absent such mechanism as of the moment, however, we urge everyone to exercise due diligence and critical thinking not only in verifying the legitimacy of such awards and recognition but also in joining, accepting and promoting such.”

The agency strongly advised the public and especially local officials “to be most prudent in giving acknowledgement and credence to award-giving bodies.”

The DILG provided specific guideposts for evaluating award-giving organizations, urging officials to consider the track record of institutions, the criteria they use, the methodologies they employ, and the mandates and objectives of the organizations, as well as their members.

“While this level acknowledges that other government agencies and private organizations and institutions are not prevented from giving due recognition to deserving local government units and elected local officials, the general public and most especially our local officials are strongly advised to be most prudent,” the statement continued.

BOARD MEMBER CONFIRMS ‘FLY-BY-NIGHT’ OPERATIONS

Bohol Board Member Benjie Arcamo, speaking on the television program “Open Forum” on Jan. 28, 2026, independently confirmed the existence of fraudulent award-giving operations.

“Indeed there are fly-by-night award giving bodies giving sham awards,” Arcamo said. “He has heard bodies that seemed to be sham and dubious.”

Arcamo noted that “the most credible awards are those given by government agencies or those involving some government agencies,” and expressed skepticism about awards from private entities without solid credentials.

“Some of the bogus award-giving bodies are just making money,” Arcamo said bluntly.

The board member questioned how these organizations are able to assess and rate winners, calling for clear-cut mechanisms that are transparent in the selection process.

Arcamo disclosed that he himself has been approached multiple times by organizations offering him awards, giving him firsthand knowledge of the schemes.

“He has experienced several times that a body has chosen him for an award,” according to his account.

“He doubts the authenticity of awards given by random private bodies without solid credentials to back their position,” the report stated.

CONTROVERSIAL SURVEY RAISES QUESTIONS

The controversy intensified after the Transparency Good Governance and Accountability Advocates released a survey naming 24 local chief executives as “Bohol’s Best” in local governance and service excellence, with ratings ranging from 90.20% to 95%.

The survey, purportedly based on feedback from 5,000 adult respondents collected between Dec. 15, 2025, and Jan. 10, 2026, claimed “a margin of error of ±3% and a 95% confidence level” that “reflects public satisfaction with city leadership, governance, and service delivery.”

At number one with a 95% rating were Tagbilaran City Mayor Jane Censoria Cajes-Yap, Valencia Mayor Dionisio Neil A. Balite, Getafe Mayor Cary Monillas Camacho and Talibon Mayor Janette Aurestila Garcia.

Number two with 94.45% were Loay Mayor Atty. Hilario Lahar Ayuban, Buenavista Mayor Atty. Dave Duallo and Carmen Mayor Conchita “Che” Toribio delos Reyes.

Number three with 94% were Garcia-Hernandez Mayor Engr. Jess Baja, Anda Mayor Angelina “Inday” Simacio and Dimiao Mayor Randolph “King” Ang.

Number four with 93.75% were Trinidad Mayor Atty. Roberto “Ondoy” C. Cajes, father of Tagbilaran City mayor, and Candijay Mayor Thamar Olaivar.

Number five with 93.20% were Baclayon Mayor Atty. Alvin Uy and San Isidro Mayor Atty. Diosdado “Dadz” Gementiza.

Number six with 92.50% were San Miguel Mayor Ian Gil Mendez and Ubay Mayor Violeta Reyes.

Number seven with 92% were Panglao Mayor Edgardo Arcay and Dauis Mayor Marietta Sumaylo.

Number eight with 91.60% were Sierra-Bullones Mayor Atty. Michael Doria and Duero Mayor Al Taculad.

Number nine with 90.65% were Sevilla Mayor Engr. Junin Caberte, Balilihan Mayor Atty. Trisha Chatto and Mabini Mayor Onjie Bernales-Lim.

Number 10 with 90.20% were Inabanga Mayor Dexter Muneses Ancla and President Carlos P. Garcia Mayor Kenneth Estavilla.

The TGGAA claimed the performance evaluation hinged on “an array of vital and critical metrics” including economic development gauged through job creation and business expansion; public safety and order measured via crime rates and emergency response effectiveness; health and social services assessed by healthcare quality and welfare initiatives; infrastructure development focusing on road construction and public utilities; education improvement evaluated on school enrollment and facility conditions; and good governance attributes such as transparency, corruption deterrence, and citizen engagement.

Critics immediately questioned whether any actual survey was conducted, especially given the suspiciously high ratings and the lack of transparency about the methodology.

One social media comment in the local dialect stated: “Mobayad Ka aron ipost ka sa ilang FB nga 90+% imong rating bisag jama jama ra. Walay survey gihimo” — suggesting officials paid to have their 90%+ ratings posted on Facebook, and that no actual survey was conducted.

MAYOR SUSPECTS POLITICAL AGENDA

In his appearance on the program “Newsmakers ug Uban Pa,” Buates went further, suggesting a political motive behind the proliferation of sham awards.

“It seems that there are politics behind the granting of awards that appear seemingly out of nowhere,” Buates said. “The one behind the awards may have a hidden political agenda and feels there is a hand behind the sham awards and he wants it to stop.”

The mayor framed his public exposure of the scheme as an effort to serve as a role model and demonstrate critical thinking.

“He exposed the sham award as he wants to be a role model and refuse to be a gullible person that believes in an award that has no clear guidelines and criteria,” according to his statements.

“I am convinced the sham awards may be used as propaganda to make it appear a public official is providing sterling service to the public when he actually is not,” Buates said.

The mayor emphasized that he needs no award to validate his service to constituents.

“He needs no award to validate his service to the people and he has received plenty of awards coming from more reputable sources like the Seal of Good Local Governance from the Department of the Interior and Local Government,” he said.

Buates characterized awards requiring payment as “downright sham” and declared he is “not stupid to latch on the award hook, line and sinker.”

He refused to name the specific body behind the award that was to be conferred on him, though he made clear his disdain for the practice.

DEFINITION OF VANITY AWARDS

According to Google’s definition, which Buates and others have referenced: “Fake or paid awards for public officials, often described as ‘vanity awards,’ are honors that require the recipient to pay fees for trophies, plaques, gala dinners, or media coverage in exchange for recognition that is not earned through genuine merit or competitive selection.”

Such awards have become increasingly common as social media provides easy platforms for organizations to promote manufactured honors and target officials eager for recognition or validation.