Ombudsman Remulla urges Supreme Court to revisit 'main plunderer' doctrine that shields big-time thieves

MANILA, Philippines — One year into his term as Ombudsman, Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla has a clear message for the Supreme Court: the “main plunderer” doctrine is protecting the biggest crooks, and it's time to change it.

In his first annual address on Monday, October 12, Remulla marked his anniversary at the Office of the Ombudsman by taking aim at a 2016 Supreme Court ruling that he says makes it nearly impossible to convict the masterminds behind large-scale corruption.

“Ang batas laban sa pandarambong ay ginawa para panagutin ang mga nagnanakaw ng bilyon-bilyon. Pero, sa doktrinang ito, ang pinakamalaking sindikato ang pinakamahirap mahuli,” Remulla said. “Hindi po iyan hustisya. Pananggalang po iyan.”

In English: The law against plunder was written to hold accountable those who steal billions. But with this doctrine, the biggest syndicate is the hardest to catch. That's not justice. That's a shield.

What is the 'main plunderer' doctrine?

The doctrine comes from the Supreme Court's 2016 decision acquitting former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in her plunder case. She was charged by then-ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales in 2012 over the alleged misuse of P366 million in confidential and intelligence funds from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office.

The ruling, penned by then-justice Lucas Bersamin, added two requirements that Remulla insists Congress never wrote into Republic Act No. 7080, the Anti-Plunder Act. Prosecutors must now name a specific “main plunderer” and prove that this person personally received or benefited from the stolen money.

Bersamin later became executive secretary under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. before resigning.

Why Remulla says the doctrine protects the smartest thieves

Remulla's frustration is simple: the doctrine rewards cunning criminals who know how to hide their tracks.

“The smarter the thief, the safer he is,” he said. “Pass the money through enough dummies, middlemen, and shell companies, and no one can be shown to have touched it.”

He pointed to the ongoing flood control corruption controversy as a prime example of this kind of layered scheme.

39 flood control cases now filed

Remulla's remarks came after he reported that the Office of the Ombudsman has filed 39 flood control cases with the Sandiganbayan and regional courts. He said the office has already done the “hardest part” of building these cases, and now the next step lies with the courts, which he expects to be “impartial, independent, and attuned to the times.”

Dissenting justices warned of this in 2016

Remulla is not alone in his criticism. Four justices dissented from the 2016 ruling, calling it a “dangerous precedent” that added elements to plunder prosecution that Congress never intended.

Justice Marvic Leonen wrote at the time: “In doing so, this Court sets itself upon the course of encroaching on Congress' plenary power to make laws. It also denies the State the opportunity to adequately present its case. Likewise, it unwittingly licenses the most cunning plunderers to prey upon public funds with impunity. This is not what the Anti-Plunder Law intends.”

“Kaya sinasabi ko ito nang may buong paggalang sa Kataastaasang Hukuman: panahon na para balikan ang doktrinang ito. It is time to revisit it,” Remulla said in his address.

What can be done to change the doctrine?

The Supreme Court can only revisit the doctrine if a case comes before it. Lawmakers could also pass legislation that effectively abolishes the “main plunderer” requirement, though Remulla did not express much hope that Congress would act on its own.

For now, the Ombudsman is sending signals to the judiciary. Whether those signals are being received remains an open question.

Frequently asked questions

What is the 'main plunderer' doctrine?

The “main plunderer” doctrine is a legal principle from a 2016 Supreme Court ruling that requires prosecutors to name a single main plunderer and prove that this person personally benefited from stolen funds. Critics say this makes it nearly impossible to convict the masterminds of large-scale corruption schemes.

Why does Remulla want the doctrine revisited?

Remulla argues the doctrine protects the most sophisticated criminals. By requiring proof that a specific person personally touched the money, the doctrine lets masterminds hide behind layers of intermediaries and shell companies.

How many flood control cases has the Ombudsman filed?

The Office of the Ombudsman has filed 39 flood control cases with the Sandiganbayan and regional courts as of October 2026.

What did the dissenting justices say in 2016?

Four justices dissented, with Justice Marvic Leonen warning that the ruling encroaches on Congress' power to make laws and “licenses the most cunning plunderers to prey upon public funds with impunity.”