Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Geraldine Faith Econg expressed frustration over the Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in Macapagal-Arroyo vs. People, which she believes has made it increasingly difficult for the country’s anti-graft court to convict public officials accused of plunder.
Econg called for the landmark ruling to be revisited, citing the difficulties Sandiganbayan justices encounter in establishing criminal liability under the standards laid down by the Supreme Court.
Her remarks come at a particularly important time, as the Office of the Ombudsman continues to pursue several high-profile plunder cases involving prominent political personalities.
That en banc ruling of the Supreme Court stemmed from charges filed by the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan of plunder against former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and several others, claiming that these public officers, by taking advantage of their office and conspiring and confederating with one another, unlawfully accumulated whether directly or indirectly, ill-gotten wealth through any or a combination or series of overt or criminal acts.
The SC, however, acquitted them by granting demurrers to evidence, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove a main plunderer, establish conspiracy or show direct personal benefit of at least P50 million.
In that 2016 decision, the High Court held the prosecution must identify a main plunderer and co-conspirators and prove that the main plunderer directly benefited.
Econg’s frustration raises an equally important question concerning the administration of justice. If the anti-graft justices themselves recognize the difficulty of proving plunder under existing jurisprudence, what does this mean for individuals currently facing the same criminal charge before the Sandiganbayan? More importantly, should individuals continue to be deprived of their liberty when the prosecution struggles to establish strong evidence of their participation in the alleged offense?
Republic Act 7080 defines plunder as an offense distinct from its predicate crimes. The offender must amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts (such as misappropriation, kickbacks, fraudulent conveyances, raids on public treasury, illegal disposition of government property, taking advantage of official position, among others) and the total amount amassed should be at least P50 million.
These questions are particularly relevant to the ongoing plunder case against the three campaign donors of Sen. Rodante Marcoleta, whose criminal liability has become the subject of considerable legal and political debate.
The case concerns P75 million in financial contributions allegedly received by Marcoleta in connection with his 2025 senatorial campaign. The Ombudsman alleges that these contributions formed part of an unlawful scheme involving the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth, pointing particularly to irregularities in their documentation, disclosure and payment of donors’ taxes.
The accused, however, maintain that the money constituted legitimate financial support for Marcoleta’s candidacy rather than proceeds of corruption.
Meeting the P50 million threshold is not enough. The prosecution must also establish that the money or property allegedly accumulated constitutes ill-gotten wealth acquired through the criminal acts contemplated under the law as well as a pattern or series of these overt criminal acts directed toward a common goal of accumulating ill-gotten wealth, rather than isolated transactions or criminal acts.
This distinction becomes particularly important in the Marcoleta case. While the P75 million in campaign contributions exceeds the statutory threshold, the amount alone cannot establish that the money constituted ill-gotten wealth.
Why is plunder difficult to prove?
In explaining conspiracy, the ruling in Macapagal-Arroyo discussed the wheel-and-chain model, drawing from earlier jurisprudence in Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan. Under this model, a central figure or hub coordinates with several individuals, whose interconnected actions form a chain of criminal activities directed toward a common objective: the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth by the principal public officer.
The wheel-and-chain model recognizes that plunder may involve several individuals performing different roles without necessarily participating in every criminal transaction or dealing directly with every co-conspirator.
The existence of such a conspiracy must still be established through evidence demonstrating that the accused knowingly participated in a common criminal scheme.
Without sufficient evidence addressing these questions, the existence of substantial campaign contributions and personal or political relationships alone cannot establish the conspiracy required to sustain the plunder charges.
The plunder case against Marcoleta and his three private donors has already undergone several hearings before the Sandiganbayan third division concerning their petitions for bail. The hearings began on Sept. 3, 2026, during which the prosecution presented its evidence to establish that the accused should remain detained while facing plunder charges. Among the evidence examined were the deeds of donation executed by the donors themselves, testimonies concerning the circumstances surrounding the financial contributions and their subsequent documentation. The bail hearings concluded in early October, with both parties submitting their respective memoranda and evidence for the court’s consideration. Last Oct. 8, the Sandiganbayan announced that the bail petitions had been submitted for resolution, leaving the court to determine whether the prosecution had established sufficiently strong evidence of guilt to justify continued detention.
Based on his own sworn affidavit, Marcoleta approached the three private donors to seek financial support for his senatorial candidacy and assured them that the contributions would comply with applicable tax, election and disclosure requirements. However, Marcoleta subsequently failed to declare the P75 million in donations in his SALNs.
He also reportedly informed the donors that his representatives had processed their tax returns and that he would shoulder the resulting surcharges and penalties arising from the delay. These admissions suggest that Marcoleta exercised control over the contributions and their documentation, placing the responsibility for the alleged disclosure irregularities principally on the senator rather than automatically implicating the three donors.
What about the three private donors? Their respective deeds of donation expressly state that the money was intended to support Marcoleta’s candidacy particularly for a pre-campaign awareness drive, while the corresponding donors’ taxes were subsequently paid.
These documents provide a lawful explanation for the financial transfers. A campaign contribution is fundamentally different from a payment intended to secure a government contract, regulatory intervention or other official favor.
The ongoing plunder case against Marcoleta and his three private donors presents an important opportunity to reaffirm the distinction between the government’s responsibility to prosecute corruption and its obligation to protect the constitutional rights of individuals accused of criminal wrongdoing.
While the public expects the Office of the Ombudsman to hold erring public officials accountable, the pursuit of justice must remain grounded in sufficient evidence and the established requirements of law.