More troubling is the report that, after resigning as mayor, Atty. Allan Yap obtained a position connected with the Department of Public Works and Highways under Secretary Vince Dizon.
I have not found a sufficiently authoritative and publicly accessible appointment record confirming his precise title, whether undersecretary, assistant secretary, consultant, or another position.
That fact must be established through the official appointment papers, oath of office, service record, and assumption documents. It should not be stated as settled fact until those records are produced.
If such an appointment was indeed made, it raises legitimate questions. Was the prospective national appointment already under consideration when he ran for mayor? Was the resignation connected with that appointment? Was his candidacy merely instrumental in keeping the mayoralty within the Yap-Uy family? Why was the transition not publicly explained to the constituents who had just elected him? Was the resignation genuine, ethical or expedient?
These questions become more pressing amid the investigations into anomalous flood-control projects and the involvement of DPWH regional directors, district engineers, contractors, and political intermediaries. The mere fact of appointment does not prove participation in any wrongdoing. But public office is a public trust, and an appointment to a sensitive department demands transparency, especially when it follows an unexplained resignation from an elective position.
The people of San Narciso, a municipality facing Ragay Gulf, should not be treated as though they can be kept in the dark. They voted for a mayor in May 2025. They are entitled to know why he relinquished the mandate they gave him, how the resignation was processed, who accepted it, and what public position he subsequently assumed.
The following records should therefore be made public:
1. Atty. Allan Yap’s letter of resignation, including its date and stated grounds;
2. The Governor’s written acceptance or certification of deemed acceptance; 3. Proof that the resignation was furnished to the DILG;
4. The DILG recognition of the lawful successor;
5. The succession documents and oath of office of the succeeding mayor;
6. Atty. Yap’s appointment papers, oath, assumption date, and precise position in the DPWH or any other national agency; and
7. Any communications concerning that appointment made before or immediately after the May 2025 elections.
The Ombudsman may investigate if there is evidence of dishonesty, grave misconduct, abuse of authority, falsification, or an unlawful arrangement involving public appointments. The DILG should examine compliance with the Local Government Code. The COMELEC should preserve the certificates of candidacy, election returns, proclamations, and other relevant records. The Office of the President should disclose any presidential appointment issued to Atty. Allan Yap.
But the broader responsibility belongs to Congress. For nearly four decades, political families have rotated public offices among husbands, wives, children, parents, and siblings while claiming compliance with individual term limits. San Narciso may be a particularly vivid illustration of how political dynasties can obey the letter of the law while defeating its democratic purpose.
Whether the events in San Narciso constituted an unlawful conspiracy cannot responsibly be declared without the official records. But the sequence is sufficiently unusual to demand disclosure and investigation. Public office cannot be passed from spouse to spouse like hereditary property, with an unexplained resignation serving as the revolving door.
The people deserve the complete record, not whispers, rumors, or a sub rosa rearrangement of political power.