The case of plunder against Senator Rodante Marcoleta could turn into a “reverse trial” as the evidence utilized in the case were based on his own admissions aired out to the public, a fellow senator said.

In an early morning post on social media this Saturday, 4 July, Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson mentioned that officials from the Office of the Ombudsman may not have a hard time prosecuting the case against Marcoleta.

“The prosecutor may just sit and watch with folded arms while the respondent argues against himself and the damning evidence that he himself presented in plain view of all the witnesses who watched his ‘admission against interest’ on national TV,” his post read.

The admission that Lacson referenced was a live broadcast last 2025 where Marcoleta openly admitted to receiving P75-million in campaign donations during the same year’s national elections from sources who wished to remain anonymous.

The revelation triggered a complaint and subsequent investigation under the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) which identified that the amount was not declared under the senator’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) and his Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE).

His donors, former congressman Mike Defensor, and businessmen Joseph Espiritu and Aristotle Viray were also identified during the probe.

In the conclusion of the electoral body’s investigation, COMELEC identified that the non-disclosure of the amount was not an electoral offense given that the same was obtained prior to Marcoleta being an official candidate for the elections.

However, for the Ombudsman, the law when it came to plunder was clear–no public official can receive any gift or donation from a private individual regardless if the amount was from private or public resources, particularly when the amount exceeds the P50-million threshold.

Marcoleta, on the other hand, has persistently argued that the cases against him were a clear form of “selective justice” and the current administration “bending the law” to silence its critics.

As for Lacson, he rejected the claim that his fellow senator was being “harrassed” given that the Ombudsman did not necessarily need to search high and far for evidence to prove its case, rather it simply took the utterances of Marcoleta as it is.

“Harassment happens when someone forcibly finds evidence to file a case against you. In this case, like what Ombudsman Remulla said, they did not need to search. He [Marcoleta] presented the evidence,” he said during a radio interview.

“Where is the harassment that they are accusing the Ombudsman, government, or whoever. The evidence fell into their lap. They have a responsibility or mandate to act on it motu proprio. It is all there,” he added.

On Friday, 3 July, the Ombudsman officially filed its case against Marcoleta before the Sandiganbayan. The case was subsequently raffled to the anti-graft court’s Third Division which also handles the flood control case against former senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla.

All three donors of Marcoleta were also tagged in the plunder case, while a separate case for violation of Presidential Decree No. 46 was also filed against them.

The Sandiganbayan has yet to issue an official arrest warrant for Marcoleta, Defensor, Espiritu and Viray.