The Office of the Ombudsman has moved to drop plunder and graft charges against former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Secretary Manuel Bonoan in exchange for his testimony in the government’s multibillion-peso flood-control scandal.

The agreement, disclosed Monday by Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla, immediately raised questions about whether Bonoan legally qualifies as a state witness or whether prosecutors are making a calculated trade to pursue or protect even bigger targets.

Political analyst and lawyer Edward Chico said the arrangement warrants close scrutiny because Philippine law imposes strict requirements before an accused may be discharged and admitted as a state witness. “To qualify as a state witness, his testimony should be absolutely necessary,” Chico said. “That means the case cannot successfully proceed without his deposition. More importantly, there must be no other direct evidence or eyewitnesses available to prove the offense.”

Remulla confirmed that he had reached what he described as “a standing agreement” with Bonoan and had already filed a motion before the Sandiganbayan seeking to discharge him as an accused.

“We already filed a motion to discharge him as an accused so that he can be a witness for the prosecution,” Remulla said.

“The knowledge that he has about the whole institution is something very important to us to be able to prove other cases. We will be benefiting from his testimony with regard to so many of the cases we are filing.”

If granted by the Sandiganbayan, the motion would pave the way for the dismissal of the graft and plunder charges pending against Bonoan before the anti-graft court’s Second and Fifth Divisions.

Chico, however, questioned whether the Ombudsman had demonstrated that Bonoan’s testimony would be indispensable.

“So far, the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice (DoJ) have already tapped some respondents as state witnesses precisely to pin down higher officials and other high-profile individuals,” he said.

“So, I wonder why his testimony is still needed.”

Chico likewise questioned whether Bonoan could satisfy another legal requirement — that a state witness must not appear to be the most guilty among those charged.

“As head of the entire department, how could he convince anyone that he is not?” Chico asked.

“If he knew about the kickback and budget-insertion scheme, it’s almost inconceivable to think that he was not giving orders by virtue of his position — unless, of course, he could say that his hands were tied and someone else was running the show.”

“But even if that’s the case, his participation was still necessary to make things happen.” Chico said Bonoan would also face a credibility problem if he instead claimed ignorance of the alleged scheme.

“Now if he claims ignorance and that it was done right under his nose, then why would he even testify if he knew nothing?

Marcos, Romualdez? Asked how the public should view the agreement, Chico said plea arrangements between prosecutors and accused persons are not unusual, but the circumstances naturally invite public scrutiny

“Obviously, there’s some horse trading here. That’s a given,” he said. Chico said the arrangement would make legal sense only if prosecutors were attempting to build cases against officials beyond those already charged.

“The only way his testimony would be absolutely necessary is when the objective is to go after the President or (former House Speaker Martin) Romualdez,” he said.

To recall, expelled Congressman Zaldy Co and several of his former security personnel have claimed that billions of pesos in flood-control kickbacks had been delivered to residences linked to President Marcos and Romualdez.

hy he needs to give statements because only he, I think, would be privy to their participation since he was the head of DPWH. He directly reported to Congress and Malacañang.”

He added that if Bonoan alone possesses firsthand knowledge identifying “who was running the show,” then “he should testify.” ACT Teachers Partylist Rep. Antonio Tinio echoed Chico’s observation, saying Bonoan’s testimony and any evidence he provides must justify his discharge from the plunder and graft cases filed against him.

“If the Ombudsman is letting Bonoan off the hook, the public has the right to know what he is bringing to the table,” Tinio said. “He was the secretary of the DPWH when these alleged irregularities happened. His revelations must be substantial enough to justify making him a state witness instead of an accused.”

“Bonoan must not be let off the hook without delivering fish bigger than himself. Otherwise, this agreement will start to smell fishy,” Tinio asserted. Dean Amado Valdez said he sees “logic” in Bonoan becoming a state witness to “ensure the success of the prosecution, as long as he is not the most guilty.”

“In other jurisdictions, like the United States, a state witness is not totally free from prosecution, but the witness is given a lesser penalty,” he added.

Quid pro quo

Another lawyer, Barry Gutierrez, said that “the arrangement to become a state witness necessarily involves either a grant of immunity or a plea to a lesser offense in exchange for providing crucial testimony.”

“In that sense, the rule that allows for state witnesses is a quid pro quo in its very essence — immunity in exchange for testimony,” he added. “

The question that must be asked now is, does Bonoan meet all the requirements for a state witness? Particularly the one that requires that he not be the ‘most guilty’ among potential accused.” But Remulla did not identify the “other cases” he referred to or disclose who Bonoan is expected to testify against.

He, however, confirmed that complaints against Senators Francis Escudero and Joel Villanueva remain under preliminary investigation. Remulla noted that he had earlier said criminal charges against Villanueva in connection with the floodcontrol controversy were expected to be ripe for filing within two weeks, but stressed that the Ombudsman was not bound by the Department of Justice’s (DoJ) findings and that it conducts its own independent evaluation.

“We did not adopt the DoJ findings because we did not find them sufficient. The result was not satisfactory to us, to our standards,” Remulla said

“It is our choice whether or not to accept the work of the DoJ because we delegate work to them. We have to conduct our own investigation to make sure the cases are airtight.”

Remulla also denied allegations that the Ombudsman was going easy on Escudero and Villanueva because both senators had joined the Senate majority bloc led by Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian.

“I’m not privy to anything of that nature. Mind you, we don’t make deals with anybody with regard to culpability or innocence,

” Remulla said. “All the deals that we make here will be in open court. If we’ll discharge you as a witness, we’ll have you discharged as a witness. But there are no other deals accepted here.”

Kickbacks

The Ombudsman’s “inaction” against Villanueva and Escudero was also tagged by some as a “quid pro quo,” with their transfer from the Senate minority to the majority bloc seen as being allied with the camp of Vice President Sara Duterte.

Bonoan was charged alongside Sen. Jinggoy Estrada in connection with allegations that Estrada received P573 million in kickbacks from various DPWH infrastructure projects in 2025. The cases were filed before the Sandiganbayan in May.

The Ombudsman earlier admitted former DPWH Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo and former Bulacan First District Engineer Henry Alcantara as state witnesses after they executed sworn statements detailing the alleged scheme.

Clavano confirmed that Bonoan remains confined at the Philippine National Police General Hospital under a hospital arrest order granted on 5 June. Under the Supreme Court ruling in Perez and Apostol v. Sandiganbayan, the Ombudsman may amend an information before arraignment.

If an accused has already been arraigned, however, prosecutors must first secure permission from the Sandiganbayan before amending the information. iganbayan before amending the information.

In either case, court approval is required before an accused may be discharged