Former Lawmaker Vows to Fight Charges, Questions Legal Basis and Alleges Unequal Enforcement
By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — Former congressman Mike Defensor has disputed the plunder complaint filed against him and Senator Rodante Marcoleta, insisting that the case is legally flawed because the money involved consisted of private campaign contributions and not government funds.
The Office of the Ombudsman on Friday elevated the case to the Sandiganbayan, charging Marcoleta, Defensor, and businessmen Aristotle Viray and Joseph Espiritu with plunder over an undeclared P75 million linked to Marcoleta’s 2025 senatorial campaign.
The four respondents also face a separate complaint for alleged violations of Presidential Decree No. 46, which prohibits public officials from accepting gifts and private individuals from giving them under circumstances covered by law.
In a statement posted on social media, Defensor argued that the prosecution’s theory rests entirely on campaign donations provided by private individuals.
He maintained that no money was taken from the government, no public funds were diverted, and no public assets were lost, questioning how the circumstances could support a charge of plunder.
Defensor also asserted that no favors, government contracts, or official acts were promised or exchanged in return for the alleged contributions.
The Office of the Ombudsman, however, defended its decision, saying the criminal complaint was supported by evidence gathered during its investigation.
According to the agency, Marcoleta had publicly acknowledged receiving the P75 million, while records also showed that the amount was not reflected in his Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) and was likewise absent from his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).
Prosecutors said these undisputed facts now present legal questions that will ultimately be resolved by the Sandiganbayan.
The controversy stems from Marcoleta’s admission in late 2025 that he accepted campaign support from three private individuals who requested that their identities remain undisclosed.
Investigators later identified the contributors as Defensor, Viray, and Espiritu, who allegedly provided P30 million, P20 million, and P25 million, respectively, for Marcoleta’s Senate campaign.
Marcoleta has consistently argued that the money came from private sources and had already been spent on legitimate campaign activities before his financial disclosures were prepared, explaining why it no longer appeared in his SALN.
The Ombudsman, however, has maintained that the explanation does not negate possible criminal liability under existing anti-corruption laws.
Despite the filing of charges, Defensor said he is prepared to defend himself before the courts.
He added that the criminal complaint would not deter him from speaking out on issues he has raised concerning alleged irregularities in government flood-control projects.
The former lawmaker earlier joined members of the Iglesia ni Cristo during rallies expressing support for Marcoleta amid the Ombudsman’s investigation.
Defensor also questioned what he described as unequal enforcement of the law.
He pointed to campaign donations made by other prominent political figures in previous national elections, arguing that if campaign contributions are now being examined as possible grounds for plunder, similar transactions involving other public officials should likewise undergo the same level of legal scrutiny.
He maintained that justice must be applied consistently, regardless of political affiliation or position.
With the complaint now formally lodged before the Sandiganbayan, the anti-graft court will determine whether the prosecution has sufficient basis to proceed to trial.
The filing marks the latest development in a case that has drawn national attention because of its potential implications on campaign finance disclosure, public accountability, and the interpretation of the country’s anti-plunder law.
Defensor, Marcoleta, and their co-accused remain presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the court.
ia/xf
