Defensor questions plunder case, says gov’t funds not involved

MANILA, Philippines — Former congressman Mike Defensor on Friday questioned the plunder case filed by the Office of the Ombudsman against him, Senator Rodante Marcoleta, and two others over a P75 million campaign donation, saying that no government fund was involved.

On the same day, the Office of the Ombudsman filed the plunder case before the Sandiganbayan, with the case raffled to the Third Division.

Aside from plunder, Marcoleta, Defensor, and two co-accused were charged for violating Presidential Decree No. 46, which prohibits public officials from receiving, and private persons from giving gifts on any occasion.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Ombudsman files plunder case vs Marcoleta in Sandiganbayan

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

“The accusation is anchored on CAMPAIGN DONATIONS. Yet there was NO GOVERNMENT FUND involved. NOTHING WAS STOLEN from the public treasury. NO FAVOR was requested, promised, or given in exchange for any donation,” Defensor wrote in a Facebook post.

He alsol wondered how it became the basis of a plunder case filed against them.

In a separate statement on Friday, the Office of the Ombudsman said that the filing of the case was not a decision “made lightly or by choice,” noting of the three cash donations made by Defensor and certain Aristotle Viray and Joseph Espiritu and the nondisclosure of Marcoleta’s statement of assets, liabilities, and network (SALN) and campaign finance reports.

READ:TIMELINE: What led to Rodante Marcoleta’s plunder case

Article continues after this advertisement

“These facts are not in dispute; the senator has publicly confirmed receiving the money, and they can be stipulated at the onset of trial. What remains is a question of law: whether these undisputed facts constitute plunder and bribery,” the Office of the Ombudsman said.

In November 2025, Marcoleta admitted in a television program that he did not declare campaign contributions upon the request of his contributors to remain anonymous.

Article continues after this advertisement

In January 2025, Defensor, Viray, and Espiritu allegedly donated P30 million, P25 million, and P20 million, respectively for Marcoleta’s senatorial campaign.

Citing his counter-affidavit, Marcoleta said that the P75 million donation were not public funds, while the plunder complaint filed before the Office of the Ombudsman said that the amount he received exceeded the above P50 million threshold for plunder.

State prosecutors noted that the amount was not reflected in his SALN as of June 30, 2025.

Marcoleta, in his counter-affidavit then said that: “The donations were likewise not reflected in my Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth because, by the time the SALNs were prepared and executed, the amounts had already been used for their intended election-related purposes and were no longer assets held by me.”

The Office of the Ombudsman also said that Marcoleta’s admission of “utang na loob” (debt of gratitude) “has no place in public office.”

“The moment gratitude is used to explain away P75 million in undisclosed money, it stops being “utang na loob” and becomes exactly what our plunder and bribery laws were written to prevent,” it added.

Defensor said that he will face the cases before the proper courts, saying that this will not stop him from exposing the anomalies in flood control projects.

He also made the same statements when he attended the first day of a three-day rally mounted by the Iglesia ni Cristo in support of Marcoleta.

‘Selective justice’

Defensor also hit what he described as “selective justice” as he pointed out the donations made by Special Assistant to the President Anton Lagdameo Jr, Agriculture secretary Francisco Tiu Laurel Jr., and Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office chief Melquiades Robles who donated to the presidential bid of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in the 2022 elections.

“If campaign donations are now being used as the basis for a PLUNDER case, then these circumstances deserve AT LEAST THE SAME LEVEL OF SCRUTINY AND INVESTIGATION. The law cannot have ONE STANDARD for political opponents and ANOTHER for political allies,” Defensor said. /gsg

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.