By Nycel Jane Dela
The Office of the Ombudsman has ordered former mayor Christopher Vincent T. Andaya of Sigma and his common-law wife to answer allegations made in criminal and administrative complaints.
In an order dated June 25, 2026, Andaya and co-respondent Mary Jean L. Aguilar are required to submit their counter-affidavits to the Ombudsman’s Visayas office in Cebu City.
The complaints filed by Sangguniang Bayan (SB) Member Rolly D. Miguel are related to transactions between the Municipality of Sigma under the Andaya administration from 2015 to 2022 and CJ Catering, a business allegedly owned by Aguilar.
The criminal complaint, docketed as OMB-V-C-AUG-25-0376, alleges violations of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
In particular, the sections that prohibit public officials from allowing family members to work in private enterprises with pending business before the government; barring government officials from entering contracts grossly disadvantageous to the government, whether or not personal gain is involved; and prohibiting officials from having a direct or indirect financial interest in contracts in which they intervene in their official capacity.
The administrative complaint, docketed as OMB-V-A-AUG-25-0441, alleges the duo are culpable of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The complaints filed by Miguel are separate from similar criminal and administrative complaints filed last April 2025 when Andaya was the sitting vice mayor.
Andaya was also seeking to regain the mayoralty seat by running against Mayor Dante Rizal Eslabon, a former political ally.
After losing the mayoralty bid in the May 2025 elections, Andaya publicly denied the allegations and claimed the complaints were politically motivated as it was filed during an election period.The order of the Ombudsman does not constitute a finding of guilt or administrative liability.
It signifies only that the Ombudsman found sufficient basis to proceed with the investigation and to require the respondents to answer the allegations before any determination on the merits of the case is made.
