The private individuals implicated here are not public officials. They did not prepare Marcoleta’s declarations and could not file or amend his SoCE or SALN for him.
Senator Rodante Marcoleta at the Sandiganbayan on Wednesday, 15 July, after a hearing into his case of plunder at the anti-graft court's Third Division.
PHOTOGRAPH courtesy of Jerod Orcullo for DAILY TRIBUNE
In a democracy, citizens should not fear jail for supporting a candidate they believe in. That is why the pending plunder case involving alleged private transfers to Senator Rodante Marcoleta deserves careful public discussion — not to shield anyone from accountability, but to insist that serious criminal liability must rest on strong, individualized evidence.
Plunder is one of the gravest offenses in Philippine law. Republic Act 7080 punishes a public officer who amasses at least P50 million in alleged ill-gotten wealth through a series or combination of unlawful acts. The law may cover benefits allegedly received from private persons by reason of public office. But not every private transfer to a politician is plunder. Prosecutors must still show that each private individual knowingly joined an unlawful scheme.
The distinction matters. Campaign contributions are part of political life. They may be regulated, reported, taxed, questioned, or penalized under election laws when rules are violated. But an alleged failure by a candidate to disclose a donation in a Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SoCE) or in a Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) should not, by itself, prove that a donor intended to help acquire ill-gotten wealth.
The private individuals implicated here are not public officials. They did not prepare Marcoleta’s declarations and could not file or amend his SoCE or SALN for him. If they presented deeds of donation and paid donor’s taxes, those acts may support a lawful explanation: political support.
They do not end the inquiry, but they require proof beyond the amount transferred or the identity of the recipient.
The Sandiganbayan should ask a specific question for each accused: Is there strong evidence that this private individual gave money by reason of public office and knowingly joined an unlawful arrangement? Unless that standard is met, detention before trial risks becoming punitive rather than preventive.
This is especially important because plunder is generally non-bailable. In bail proceedings, the Constitution requires courts to examine whether the evidence of guilt is strong. That inquiry cannot be collective. A shared accusation cannot substitute for proof against each person.
The same principle appeared in former Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr.’s malversation case, where the Sandiganbayan distinguished his case from his co-accused and granted bail after finding that the prosecution had not shown strong evidence of guilt at that stage. The ruling did not decide guilt; it simply applied the constitutional standard for liberty. That same standard should guide Marcoleta’s private donors.
The problem is bigger than this case. If donors can face plunder charges just because a candidate is later accused of disclosure violations, people may be afraid to support campaigns. Business owners, professionals, civic groups, and ordinary Filipinos may hesitate before contributing, especially in heated contests. That would weaken democracy.
This does not excuse unlawful campaign financing. Prohibited donations, false reports, and concealment must be pursued firmly. Public officials should answer for unexplained wealth and dishonest disclosures. Still, the rule of law requires proportion. Election violations should not be treated as plunder unless the evidence proves every element of that crime.
The Sandiganbayan can protect both accountability and liberty through accused-specific bail hearings. If prosecutors show that a private donor knowingly joined an unlawful plan, the case should proceed. But if the evidence shows only a campaign donation allegedly omitted from required disclosures, bail should be considered under the constitutional standard. The merits remain for the court to decide.
Private citizens should not become collateral damage in enforcing campaign and anti-corruption laws. The fight against corruption is vital, but it must not blur the line between lawful democratic participation and criminal conspiracy. That line protects supporters, critics, candidates and the public itself.
