2 hours ago
1
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
MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan Seventh Division has barred Sen. Rodante Marcoleta, former congressman Mike Defensor and two others from leaving the Philippines as they face plunder and bribery complaints over P75 million in supposed campaign donations.
The anti-graft court, after conducting an ex-parte hearing yesterday, granted the request of the Office of the Ombudsman for a precautionary hold departure order (PHDO).
The Office of the Ombudsman is conducting a preliminary investigation on the complaint for plunder, indirect bribery and alleged violation of Presidential Decree No. 46 on
receiving gifts against Marcoleta and his co-respondents over questions on the senator’s election campaign donations.
The complaint stemmed from an earlier investigation by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) into
Marcoleta’s alleged non-disclosure of campaign donations in his statement of contributions and expenditures (SOCE).
Marcoleta, who ran and placed sixth in the 2025 elections, previously declared that he had no poll contributions but during the Comelec probe, he admitted he received three separate donations in January 2025 totaling P75 million for his senatorial campaign.
According to the complaint, Defensor donated P30 million, while businessmen Joseph Espiritu and Aristotle Viray contributed P25 million and P20 million, respectively, on Jan. 6, 8 and 9, 2025.
Apart from not declaring the amounts in his SOCE, Marcoleta also did not include the P75 million in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth submitted to the Senate as of June 30, 2025.
With this, ombudsman investigators said Marcoleta “unlawfully enriched himself at the expense of the public.”
Ex-parte hearing
Maria Melinda Mananghaya-Henson, director of the Field Investigation Bureau-Luzon of the Office of the Ombudsman, told theSandiganbayan that Marcoleta posed a flight risk due to his influence as a senator, his financial capacity to leave the country and stay abroad to evade prosecution and investigation, as well as his “tendency to conceal illegality and evade liability,” particularly citing the senator’s failure to disclose the P75 million in campaign donations.
Henson said the other respondents were also considered flight risks since they allegedly acted as co-conspirators in the distribution of the cash donations and possessed the influence and financial capacity to travel abroad amid the ongoing investigation.
She also said there was probable cause to pursue criminal charges against Marcoleta because he was a congressman at the time he received the donations, adding that the amount was “out of proportion” to his income as a public official.
Henson noted that based on their investigation, it would take a sitting congressman around 20 years to earn P75 million based on his salary alone.
She also pointed out that in Marcoleta’s verified position paper, he did not declare any relationship with the donors, whom she claimed were aware that he was a public official.
Even if the amount was claimed to be a gift due to their friendship, Henson said friendship cannot be the reason for giving such amount as it is “outside the ordinary act of generosity.”
Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla shot down Marcoleta’s allegations that the complaints against him were “trumped-up” and aimed at punishing dissent.
“I do not want to get into the political mix of it. This is very clear. All of the evidences came from him, everything he said before the Comelec. These were not invented. You saw the footages on Net25 and on other stations where he said he even spent the money. He claimed that he spent the money and there was seemingly no hesitation on what he did,” he said.
Not election offense
According to Comelec Chairman George Garcia, all allegations against Marcoleta are not automatically considered election offenses under their jurisdiction, although they may fall under criminal or administrative laws.
Garcia explained that the commission had previously conducted a motu proprio investigation based on available documents, even without a formal complaint from any individual, due to the gravity of the issues raised during the period in question.
“At that time, Comelec initiated its own investigation based on established facts and available information,” Garcia said in an interview yesterday, adding that the poll body proceeded independently to assess possible violations.
However, he stressed that changes in the election law affected the outcome of certain complaints. He cited Republic Act 7166, which decriminalized the non-disclosure of contributors in certain filings, removing it as an election offense.
He clarified, however, that the dismissal did not amount to a full exoneration, noting that other violations may still be pursued under different laws.
Garcia pointed out that while election offense liability may no longer apply in some instances, other legal remedies remain available, including perjury cases for false statements and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which fall under the jurisdiction of prosecutors or the Office of the Ombudsman.
Meanwhile, Garcia addressed public concerns about transparency in campaign finance disclosures, saying all SOCE submissions are now expected to be made available electronically through Comelec’s online portal.
