Lawfare must stop
Critics rightly note that stretching anti-graft statutes to cover pre-campaign private contributions risks criminalizing routine political fundraising.
Text size
Daily TribuneCritics rightly note that stretching anti-graft statutes to cover pre-campaign private contributions risks criminalizing routine political fundraising.
The three-day protest action mobilized by the Iglesia ni Cristo will not be the last as Filipinos’ outrage continues to build over the targeting of the Senate minority in connection with the effort to oust Vice President Sara Duterte.
Thousands of protesters voiced their outrage. At the center of the peaceful protests stands Senator Rodante Marcoleta, facing a non-bailable plunder charge filed by the Office of the Ombudsman on 3 July for alleged undeclared campaign donations totaling P75 million.
The timing of the charges could hardly be more suspicious. With the Senate set to convene as an impeachment court to try Vice President Duterte on 6 July, Marcoleta’s potential detention raises profound questions about selective justice, political harassment and the deliberate marginalization of opposition voices ahead of the trial.
Marcoleta has mounted a vigorous defense, labeling the charges fabricated. In his view, the funds were legitimate private donations received before the official campaign period began and were reported under election laws, with the donors even paying taxes on them.
He insisted that they fell outside the parameters of the plunder law, which targets ill-gotten wealth derived from public funds, projects, or contracts — not campaign support from allies.
Most notably, the Commission on Elections had cleared him of the same charges.
“This is not contemplated in our plunder law,” he argued in a foreign media interview, emphasizing the transparency and the absence of any link to the looting of the national treasury.
His supporters echo this sentiment, seeing the case as retaliation for his aggressive probes into major corruption scandals, particularly anomalous flood control projects.
Plunder carries a P50-million threshold; the donations pushed the total just above it. Critics rightly note that stretching anti-graft statutes to cover pre-campaign private contributions risks criminalizing routine political fundraising.
Marcoleta sees the Ombudsman’s move as calibrated to sideline him precisely when the Senate needs every opposition voice for the Duterte trial.
An arrest would not only remove him from the chamber but also send a chilling message to other senators wary of crossing the administration.
Vice President Duterte’s impeachment, transmitted by the House and now before the Senate for trial, involves serious allegations of misused confidential funds exceeding P600 million, unexplained wealth, high crimes and related charges.
As an impeachment court, the Senate’s role demands solemn impartiality, not the appearance of a stacked deck. Neutralizing a vocal Duterte ally like Marcoleta, known for his sharp questioning, conveniently weakens scrutiny and procedural challenges from the side of the defense.
House prosecutors deny any connection, insisting that Marcoleta’s case rests on the evidence and his own admission of nondisclosure.
Public discontent is boiling hotter because this fits a broader pattern. Filipinos have watched a series of high-profile cases, shifting alliances and institutional pressures erode their trust in governance.
When an official investigating “the biggest corruption scandal” in flood control suddenly faces career-ending charges, citizens reasonably ask: Why now?
The Iglesia ni Cristo rallies, though they concluded after “sending a message,” underscored the widespread frustration with the perceived selective prosecution. The deeper issue transcends one man’s guilt or innocence — it is the instrumentalization of justice for political ends.
The filing of non-bailable charges just days before a landmark impeachment trial inevitably casts a political shadow over the proceedings. It risks turning the Senate from a deliberative body into an arena where absences, rather than arguments, shape outcomes.
Should Marcoleta be unable to participate, his absence would not merely reduce the opposition’s numbers, it could undermine public confidence in the legitimacy of whatever verdict the Senate will ultimately reach on Duterte’s fate.
The timing is no coincidence but is part of a broader effort to preserve political power.
