Sandigan junks graft case vs ex-PRA chief

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

June 9, 2026 | 12:00am

Over deals for Bacoor Bay reclamation project

MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan has dismissed the graft case against former Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) chairman Alberto Agra, who was accused of favoring Bacoor City in Cavite and its partners for a reclamation project even when another firm had the right of first refusal.

In a 33-page ruling, the anti-graft court’s Third Division granted Agra’s demurrer to evidence and dismissed the case against him for violating Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The prosecutors alleged that Agra gave unwarranted benefit, preference and advantage to Bacoor and its reclamation project partners, Frabelle Fishing Corp. and Diamond Export Corp.

Agra allegedly directed the execution of the memoranda of agreement (MOAs) for the reclamation of 844 hectares of Bacoor Bay “despite conflicting with the ‘right of first refusal to reclaim’ of the Province of Cavite and Cavitex Holdings, which includes the same subject area, pursuant to a subsisting joint venture agreement entered with two entities based in Malaysia” in 1994.

The prosecution “failed to prove that Agra represented PRA or directed and instructed the entry into and execution of the MOAs,” according to the decision penned by Associate Justice Ronald Moreno and concurred in by Third Division members Karl Miranda and Fritz Bryn Anthony delos Santos.

The court noted that “a plain reading of the MOAs shows that the PRA was represented by its general manager/CEO (and) not by Agra.”

“Agra’s concurrence in authorizing the general manager/CEO to sign the MOAs cannot be equated with directing or instructing their execution,” the court ruled.

It added that “under the PRA’s revised manual of corporate governance, it is the governing board that is vested with authority to exercise corporate powers and conduct business. Accordingly, the authority to approve the execution of the MOAs rested with the PRA governing board as a collegial body, not with the chairperson alone.”