Three possible scenarios in Marcoleta case

THE filing of a non-bailable plunder case against Sen. Rodante Marcoleta over P75 million in private campaign donations is not just another headline in our endless graft drama; it is a watershed in the weaponization of law in this country. By treating lawful campaign support from private individuals as “ill-gotten wealth” under the Plunder Law, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla have opened a legal Pandora’s box that can swallow any political opponent — and any citizen reckless enough to support one generously.

According to the Ombudsman’s own public statements and media reports, the plunder case hinges on P75 million in campaign contributions that three private individuals allegedly gave Marcoleta in January 2025: P30 million from former congressman Mike Defensor, and P45 million from businessmen Joseph Espiritu and Aristotle Viray. These are not alleged kickbacks from a flood control project, nor commissions from an overpriced contract, nor money taken from the Treasury. They are private funds, donated during an election season, which the Ombudsman now says were not declared in Marcoleta’s statement of contributions and expenditures (SOCE), and in his state of assets, liabilities and net worth — and on that basis alone are being treated as “ill-gotten wealth” reaching the P50-million plunder threshold.

The Ombudsman has even invented its own English dictionary: “plunder” — derived from the German plündern that arose from the 1630s Thirty Years War — has always meant robbing, pillaging the public treasury, skimming off fat contracts, diverting money held in trust. Republic Act (RA) 7080 defines plunder as the amassing of ill-gotten wealth of at least P50 million through “misappropriation, conversion or outright taking of public funds, or through a series of corrupt acts anchored on public office.” In every major plunder case of the past — from the Marcos and military-linked Swiss deposits, to the Estrada “jueteng” and tobacco excise funds scandal — the core accusation has been the same: public money or benefits from public power, illegally diverted into private hands.

Now, for the first time, the Ombudsman has decided that private campaign donations, unaccompanied by any proven kickback scheme, can themselves be the “ill-gotten wealth” in a plunder information. He has to do that of course, because if Marcoleta is accused of a crime in which the graft money is less than P50 million, he can post bail. Marcos’ order to take out Marcoleta from the political landscape was emboldened by the jailing of Sen. Jinggoy Estrada and the forcing of another senator, Ronald dela Rosa, into becoming a fugitive to evade an alleged warrant of arrest by a foreign court. Remulla and his ill-paid lawyers do not even see how ridiculous it is to call very voluntary donations as plunder.

If Marcoleta indeed failed to disclose P75 million in campaign contributions, the venue should be the Commission on Elections invoking the Omnibus Election Code. Non-declaration of contributions is a compliance and transparency offense, not a classic graft scheme. The usual sanctions are fines, administrative penalties, or, in aggravated cases, election-related prosecution.

But the Comelec has already cleared Marcoleta of the charge. On March 17, 2026, the Comelec en banc voted 6-0 to terminate its investigation of Senator Marcoleta over the P75 million in undisclosed campaign donations. The commission’s political finance and affairs department found that while Marcoleta indeed failed to declare the contributions from three donors in his SOCE, the nondisclosure of campaign contributions is no longer a criminal offense under Philippine law. Section 39 of Republic Act 7166 repealed Section 109 of the Omnibus Election Code. The Comelec Chairman Garcia was unambiguous in his declaration: “It is already decriminalized.” This definitive ruling by the proper authority makes Remulla’s plunder case not just legally dubious but a direct challenge to the jurisdiction and findings of another constitutional body.

Target

The choice of target is not random. Marcoleta is not just another senator; he is one of the few who has dared to pursue the sworn accounts of 18 soldiers who claim to have delivered graft money to President Marcos, members of his family and their political allies. He is also poised to sit as a judge in the looming impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte — a constitutional process where Malacañang plainly prefers a docile, controllable Senate. By slapping him with a non-bailable plunder charge, the Ombudsman gives Malacañang a convenient pretext to suspend him and bar him from legislative duties, including that impeachment trial. It is difficult to see this as anything but targeted legal warfare: Remove the inconvenient senator, terrorize his donors and send a message to any other lawmaker tempted to cross the Palace.

As alarming as this obvious attempt at political assassination against one senator is the signal this case sends to the entire citizenry. If private campaign donations themselves can be retroactively rebranded as “ill-gotten wealth,” then any entrepreneur, civic leader or church group that dares support a controversial candidate can suddenly find themselves haled before the Sandiganbayan as plunderers. The line between lawful political participation and “plunder” evaporates; the only safe course is to fund only those blessed by the Palace. This is not law; this is lawfare — the calculated use of criminal statutes to strangle political funding of opponents and to frighten citizens back into political passivity.

The Office of the Ombudsman is supposed to be the Republic’s last institutional line against impunity. Under Remulla, it is becoming the Palace’s inquisitor-in-chief. Once you accept the theory that undeclared private donations can alone constitute plunder, you have transformed RA 7080 from a shield against grand larceny into a bludgeon against whoever angers the incumbent. If the Sandiganbayan throws out this case for lack of the essential elements of plunder, the Ombudsman’s credibility will lie in tatters. If the court normalizes this doctrine, then no political donor in this country will sleep soundly again.

This outrageous, despicable case has three different possible scenarios. One is that public outrage escalates into street protest, a “people power”-style movement demanding that the plunder case be junked and the Ombudsman be held to account, or even to remove Marcos. The attempt to arrest Marcoleta could be the last straw that will break the back of this evil regime.

Enrile

It could be the equivalent of the dictator Marcos’ move in February 1986 to arrest then-defense secretary Juan Ponce Enrile for attempting to undertake a coup d’etat against him. If the Iglesia Ni Cristo decides to give Marcoleta refuge in its Central Temple/Office in Quezon City, and ask its 3 million members to defend their sacred place, will Marcos order it to be raided by the police and even the military? Will the other churches just remain quiet over the massacre of their fellow Christians?

Another scenario is sadder: The country shrinks in fear, and this becomes the template for a de facto martial law, an authoritarian regime without a proclamation — rule by prosecutors and warrants instead of tanks.

The third lies somewhere in between: Enough institutional and elite resistance builds up that Remulla is quietly eased out, the information against Marcoleta and his donors is withdrawn “for further review,” or even that the Sandiganbayan refuses to hear the case as the Ombudsman deliberately breaks the myriad rules for filing a case, and the Palace pretends nothing happened. Every Filipino who believes in the rule of law should be clear which path we must refuse and which we must insist on.

Plunder

Words matter. Plunder was meant to name the great robberies of our history — the systematic looting of a poor nation by those entrusted with its coffers. To cheapen that word by using it against private campaign donors and a senator over undeclared contributions is to insult every Filipino who lived through real plunder under Marcos Jr.’s father and his cronies, and under the son, as more and more exposes will reveal.

If we allow this grotesque stretching of the law to stand, then we concede that any act the Palace dislikes can be relabeled “plunder” and punished as such, or any critic arrested and jailed for some invented crime. Today, the target is Rodante Marcoleta and his friends. Tomorrow it could be any candidate, any donor, any citizen who dares stand on the wrong side of Malacañang’s favor. Remulla could also brand any protest action against Malacañang as “terrorism.”

But Marcos may have overplayed his hand. His hubris over the jailing of Jinggoy, the fugitive status of dela Rosa, the defection of the intimidated Joel Villanueva and Francis Escudero to his bloc in the Senate has led to this strategic mistake of attempting to jail a senator who in just 15 months in office has proven to be a legislator fearless in going against this corrupt regime, and is backed by the country’s biggest Christian church after the Catholics. I don’t think Marcos will live out his official term as president.

---

Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao

X: @bobitiglao

Website: www.rigobertotiglao.com

The post Three possible scenarios in Marcoleta case first appeared on Rigoberto Tiglao.

Three possible scenarios in Marcoleta case
Source: Breaking News PH