The camp of Senator Jinggoy Estrada expressed their vehement opposition to the motion of the Office of the Ombudsman to discharge former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Secretary Manuel Bonoan from the case filed against the officials at the Sandiganbayan.

In a hearing at the anti-graft court’s Second Division concerning the matter, the lawyers of Estrada argued that the proposed amendments of the Ombudsman to their information were substantial and prejudicial to their client given that both of the accused were tagged as co-conspirators in the alleged crime.

It was also noted that removing Bonoan as an accused in the case would alter the arguments of the defense, particularly as the accused senator was already arraigned for the initial complaint as early as 2 June.

On the other hand, the prosecution argued that amending its information on the case did not directly affect the case at hand against Estrada as it labeled its motion as a “formal amendment,” which entails that their team was merely making minor changes that do not directly affect the nature of the charge nor its theory.

As part of its argument, the prosecutors cited the ruling on the case of Soberano vs People wherein the Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor in a case may amend its information with an intent to exclude a certain accused in so far as the arraignment for the same has not yet been accomplished.

However, the court questioned such an argument, as it noted that the circumstances in the aforementioned case did not match that of the issue at hand, given that the court had already entered a plea on behalf of Estrada.

The justices likewise questioned the belief of the prosecutors in so far as the matter could be decided based on Rule 110, Section 14 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, wherein it is allowed for a complaint to be amended in the event that the accused has yet to issue their plea.

When it comes to the aforementioned matter, the court suggested that the appropriate remedy was laid out in Rule 119, Section 17 of the same guidelines, which allows for a witness to be discharged on account of becoming a state witness under the basis that their testimony was necessary and that they are not the most guilty in the case, among others.

Given the valid arguments raised by both parties, the court moved to refrain from giving an immediate ruling, stating that the matter was now subject to resolution in consideration of all matters pointed out.

The pre-trial conference of Estrada was likewise moved to a later date given the pending issue that the court has yet to resolve.

Notably, the Ombudsman had filed a similar motion to discharge at the anti-graft court’s Fifth Division which handles the case of graft and plunder against Estrada, Bonoan, and three other Public Works officials.

To recall, Estrada was charged with multiple counts of graft and plunder as he supposedly received kickbacks amounting to P573 million in the infrastructure portfolio of the DPWH in 2025.