MANILA, Philippines — Rodante Marcoleta told the Office of the Ombudsman that the plunder and indirect bribery complaint filed against him over alleged campaign donations totaling P75 million lacks the legal basis required to support the charges.
In a counter-affidavit submitted to the Ombudsman on June 5 and released to the media over the weekend, Marcoleta argued that the complaint failed to establish the elements necessary to prove plunder and indirect bribery.
“The Complaint-Affidavit is legally insufficient because it does not establish the elements of the offenses charged,” the counter-affidavit stated.
Marcoleta disputed allegations that donations from former representative Mike Defensor and individuals Joseph Espiritu and Aristotle Viray constituted public funds subject to the provisions of the Plunder Law.
State prosecutors alleged that the donations exceeded the P50 million threshold required for plunder under Republic Act No. 7080.
Marcoleta said the complaint did not show that he amassed, accumulated, or acquired ill-gotten wealth as defined under the law.
“There is no question that the allegations in the Complaint-Affidavit do not constitute that I amassed, accumulated, or acquired ill-gotten wealth within the contemplation of the Plunder Law,” the counter-affidavit stated.
He also argued that the alleged acts did not meet the standard of systematic corruption that the law was enacted to address.
The counter-affidavit further stated that the donations were made before the start of the official campaign period for the 2025 elections and therefore did not need to be included in his Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE).
Marcoleta cited a 2009 Supreme Court ruling which, according to the filing, provides that liability for election offenses attaches only during the campaign period. The campaign period for the 2025 elections began on Feb. 11.
Prosecutors also alleged that Marcoleta failed to disclose the P75 million donation in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).
According to the complaint, Marcoleta reported P39.6 million in assets in his June 30, 2025 SALN and P16.7 million in cash and savings in his December 2025 SALN.
In response, Marcoleta said the funds no longer existed as assets when he filed the SALNs because he had already used them for election-related expenses.
“The donations were likewise not reflected in my Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) 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,” he stated.
Marcoleta argued that issues involving his SALN and SOCE did not establish the legal connection necessary to support plunder and bribery charges.
The counter-affidavit also suggested that the complaint may have been intended to divert attention from ongoing legislative inquiries into governance issues.
Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayan granted a precautionary hold departure order against Marcoleta, Defensor, Espiritu, and Viray following a petition filed by the Office of the Ombudsman.
A precautionary hold departure order directs the Bureau of Immigration to prevent a person suspected of a crime punishable by at least six years and one day in prison from leaving the country.
The order is based on a court’s determination that there is a risk the respondent could leave the country and does not constitute a finding of guilt.
