The Sandiganbayan Third Division has junked the graft case against a former Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) chairperson regarding the alleged violation of a contractual clause.
This was the outcome of the anti-graft court division’s move to grant the demurrer to evidence filed by Alberto Collantes Agra on Jan. 26, 2026 for the dismissal of his case under Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The case arose from the execution of three memoranda of agreement (MOA) between PRA and Bacoor City in 2021 regarding the reclamation projects, despite the claimed right of first refusal (ROFR) of Cavite Holdings Inc (CHI) and the Province of Cavite. An ROFR refers to a contractual clause that guarantees a party the opportunity to purchase an asset before the other party could sell it to someone else.
The same reclaimed area in PRA and Bacoor City’s MOA was alleged to be a subject of a ROFR clause pursuant under the joint venture agreement of PRA and Malaysian firms Majlis Amanah Rakyat and Renong Berhad, according to the Office of the Ombudsman prosecutors.
State prosecutors then accused Agra of manifest partiality, evident bad faith and/or gross excusable negligence by allowing the reclamation project to proceed despite the existing ROFR clause.
In a resolution penned by Associate Justice Ronald Moreno promulgated on June 5, he noted that there are three grounds for graft conviction: first, if the accused is a public official; second, if he acted with manifest partiality, or evident bad faith, and/or gross inexcusable negligence; and, third, if their action caused undue injury to the government or unwarranted benefits to a private party.
‘The first element is present,’ Moreno wrote in the resolution. ‘However, upon review of the records, the court finds that the prosecution failed to prove the second and third elements.’
The court said the evidence is insufficient to establish that Agra represented, directed, and instructed the execution of the three MOAs. A plain reading of the MOAs stated that the PRA was represented by its General Manager Janilo Rubiato, while Agra only signed as a witness.
The prosecution also said that PRA, under Rubiato, could not enter into the MOA without Agra’s concurrence. However, PRA rules state that the authority to approve the execution of the MOAs lies with the PRA Governing Board as a collegial body, not with the chairperson alone.
‘Failure to establish that he (Agra) committed these acts precludes a finding of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019,’ the resolution said. ‘The second element is therefore absent.’
‘Similarly, as it was not proven that Agra committed the acts imputed to him, he could not have given any unwarranted benefit, preference, or advantage to the City of Bacoor and its reclamation partners, nor caused undue injury to the Province of Cavite or CHI. Thus, the third element is also absent,’ it continued.
In a separate concurring opinion, Associate Justice Karl Miranda, Third Division chairperson, raised that the present criminal case is not the appropriate opportunity to settle the validity of the ROFR clause of CHI.
But still, Miranda said the parties should seek a definitive legal ruling on the issue of the ROFR.
Miranda then issued a ‘strong reprimand’ against the parties for seeking administrative opinions from the Office of the Government Counsel (OGCC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) instead of filing an appropriate case before the courts.
The OGCC and DOJ has repeatedly recognized the ROFR clause in this case.
Associate Justice Fritz Bryn Delos Santos also issued a separate concurring opinion, noting that Agra, in his official capacity as chairperson, cannot be expected to also be knowledgeable of PRA’s daily operations, including the OGCC and DOJ opinion on the ROFR.
Delos Santos said the prosecutors only relied on presumption of knowledge without concrete evidence that Agra should have known the OGCC and DOJ opinions. /das