Two birds, one stone
‘If a series of acts is not established, then there is no plunder and, therefore, there is no probable cause.’
Text size
‘If a series of acts is not established, then there is no plunder and, therefore, there is no probable cause.’
The immediate goal of the oust-Sara Duterte movement is to clip the vice president’s wings by taking down her strongest ally in the Senate, Rodante Marcoleta.
Marcoleta, along with his campaign donors, now stands accused of plunder over P75 million in contributions that fueled his winning 2025 Senate bid.
Plunder is a non-bailable offense, and the law sets a high bar for conviction. Prosecutors must prove not a single act but a combination or series of criminal acts amounting to at least P50 million in ill-gotten wealth, as defined under the Plunder Law.
What was alleged in the information against Marcoleta, a court veteran said, was his receipt of campaign contributions amounting to more or less P50 million from private individuals, which, according to the Ombudsman, were given in consideration of a promise, gift, or reward after the money had been provided.
Assuming such a contribution occurred and that the giving of election campaign funds is considered criminal, that would account for only a single act. There must be a second act included in the information for the offense to qualify as plunder.
“If a series of acts is not established, then there is no plunder and, therefore, there is no probable cause,” the legal expert said.
Plunder means accumulating money for personal gain through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts — meaning more than one distinct act — done as part of a pattern.
That second requirement is the whole ballgame. The Supreme Court, in the 2001 Estrada v Sandiganbayan case that upheld the constitutionality of the Plunder Law, defined “combination” and “series” precisely to distinguish plunder from a single transaction.
Even if it is assumed that receiving the P75 million and failing to declare it was somehow criminal, that is still just one act.
“Let us say they argue that there was a series of acts, since that depends on how they drafted the information,” the legal expert said.
The next question would be: Was the giving of the money as a campaign contribution really made in consideration of a gift or a promise?
If campaign contributions were considered criminal, the source said, then all of the country’s business tycoons would end up in jail because they all give money to candidates and naturally expect better access to government once the official takes office. “People don’t just give away money for no reason.”
Since plunder is a non-bailable offense, Marcoleta faces detention if arrested.
What is happening today, according to critics of the alleged Malacañang and Ombudsman tandem, supports an effort at self-preservation by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his allies.
Critics argue that the objective is not merely to remove Vice President Duterte through impeachment but also to secure her permanent disqualification from public office to prevent her from seeking the presidency in 2028.
The latest opinion surveys show that she remains one of the strongest potential contenders.
The remaining two years of the Marcos administration will likely be consumed by efforts to preserve its political influence, either by extending its hold on power or by ensuring that a political ally succeeds it, thereby keeping unresolved issues from public scrutiny.
The Marcoleta episode is unlikely to be an isolated incident. Similar moves are likely to recur as the political battle over Vice President Duterte’s future intensifies.
Housing is probably the biggest issue affecting people the world over.
Malacañang on Monday called for a more thorough investigation into the questioned flood control projects in Taguig…
The defense on Monday backed the move by senator-judges to exclude a prosecution witness who testified on the firearms…
