1 month ago
19
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
February 12, 2026 | 8:10pm
MANILA, Philippines — Former lawmaker Bong Revilla filed his counter-affidavit in the plunder complaint he is facing on Thursday, February 12.
Revilla arrived in handcuffs and a vest at the Department of Justice on Thursday afternoon, coming from a penal facility in Quezon City.
“Hindi ko alam paano nakakatulog 'yung mga nag-aakusa sa akin,” Revilla said in a chance interview with reporters.
(I don't know how the people accusing me can even sleep at night.)
The spokesperson of Revilla’s legal team, lawyer Franchesca Señga, also told reporters that three of Revilla’s co-accused — former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) engineer Henry Alcantara, Gerard Opulencia and Roberto Bernardo — filed a manifestation saying they would not respond to the case as they have already been discharged due to their status as state witnesses.
“So nakakapagtaka, apat na respondents, tatlo, nasa witness protection. Isa lang matitira,” Señga said.
(So it’s quite puzzling, out of four respondents, three are in witness protection. Only one is left.)
Citing documents from the investigation, Señga also said that Bernardo has been discharged as a state witness since November, while Alcantara has been discharged as a state witness since December.
“So mag-file sila ng complaint against sa alam naman nilang naka-discharge na at nasa witness protection program, kaya medyo nakapagtataka 'yung ganung nangyari,” she said.
(It's strange that they'd file a complaint against someone they know is already under witness protection and has been discharged as a witness.)
“Sen. Bong will avail all the allowable remedies sa kanya sa batas (Sen. Bong will avail all the allowable remedies according to the law),” she added.
Señga also claimed that the requirements of plunder are “not satisfied” in Revilla’s case, citing documents and sworn statements.
“Kung walang acts in the case of Sen. Bong, wala ngang acts or omissions na mapakita na ginawa niya that would constitute the crime,” she said.
(If there are no acts in Sen. Bong's case, then there aren't any acts or omissions to point to that would constitute a crime.)
It may be recalled that on January 15, Opulencia, Alcantara, and Bernardo were named as state witnesses in some cases related to the flood control scandal.
In response to Señga’s claims, Department of Justice spokesperson Polo Martinez explained that individuals admitted to the Witness Protection Program (WPP) still need to present a certification before the panel of prosecutors.
“If said respondent has been admitted as a state witness into the WPP, they must allege such fact, as a matter of defense, in their respective counter-affidavits,” Martinez said.
“Also, as part of the WPP procedure, they will have to provide the panel of prosecutors a copy of a 'Certificate of Materiality’ issued by the WPP,” he added.
He added that being state witnesses does not automatically remove them from the prosecutors’ resolution.
“Because what happens is, kapag nalaman na state witness na sila, ilalagay parin 'yan sa resolution that they’re being discharged as state witnesses,” he said.
(The resolution will still include their discharge as state witnesses once their status is confirmed.)
The plunder case against Revilla was filed by the National Bureau of Investigation on Nov. 13, 2025, with Bernardo, Opulencia and Alcantara as co-accused.
The following are the complaints filed against them:
- Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
- Plunder under R.A. 7080, as amended
- Direct Bribery and Receiving Gifts by Public Officers
- Corruption of Public Officers
Revilla, on the other hand, is currently detained due to another graft and malversation case before the Sandiganbayan over the alleged anomalous P92.8 million flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan.
This marks the second time Revilla has been detained in connection with corruption allegations.
In 2013, he was implicated in the pork barrel scam but was later acquitted by the anti-graft court due to insufficiency of evidence.
