Private Funds No Shield From Plunder Charges, Says Clavano

Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano has made it clear that plunder charges can still be filed even if the money involved comes from private funds, not government coffers. The statement directly counters Senator Rodante Marcoleta's defense against a P75-million undeclared donation complaint, bringing the case closer to the Sandiganbayan this week.

Why Private Funds Can Still Qualify as Plunder

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Clavano addressed the growing debate around the Marcoleta case head on. Senator Marcoleta had dismissed the plunder complaint as legally insufficient, arguing that the P75 million in question came from private donors, not public funds. Under Republic Act 7080, plunder requires a threshold of P50 million.

But Clavano stood firm. He explained that while most plunder cases do involve public money, the law itself does not restrict the crime to government funds alone.

Direct bribery coming from a private individual can also be considered corruption. So when there's a series or combination of that, it can be called plunder.

This interpretation hits at the heart of what many Filipinos have long suspected: that corruption finds many doors, not just the one marked with public funds. When a public official receives massive sums from private individuals in a pattern, the law sees it for what it is.

What Marcoleta Failed to Declare

Beyond the plunder accusation, Marcoleta and his three campaign donors face a separate bribery complaint. Former Anakalusugan Representative Mike Defensor donated P30 million, businessman Aristotle Viray gave P25 million, and Joseph Espiritu contributed P20 million.

Clavano broke down the violation plainly. Public officials are generally prohibited from accepting such amounts. The exception is during campaign period when collecting money for the election. However, Marcoleta never declared the donation in his Statement of Contributions and Expenditures, nor in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth.

He just declared it in the public, the media, but actually, he should have put it either in his SALN or Soce.

It is a basic principle of public service. Transparency is not optional. When a senator admits on his own TV program that friends gave him campaign contributions on the condition their identities stay hidden, the public deserves answers, not excuses.

How Marcoleta Explained the Missing Declarations

In his counter-affidavit, Marcoleta argued that the P75 million donation received in January 2025 was already spent during the campaign, which is why it did not appear in his SALN. He also claimed the contribution was not reflected in his Soce submitted to the Commission on Elections because the donation was made before the campaign period began in February last year.

The Comelec previously dismissed the election offense against Marcoleta. But the Office of the Ombudsman chose to open its own probe, signaling that the issue was far from settled.

When Will the Plunder Case Be Filed?

Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla announced on Monday that the plunder case against Marcoleta and his co-accused could be filed in the Sandiganbayan this week. As of Tuesday, however, Clavano confirmed the resolution ordering the criminal information has not yet been signed.

As mentioned by the Ombudsman yesterday, the resolution is in its final stages already but he anticipates that the resolution may be signed and the information may be filed. We don't want to dictate upon the investigators and the panel as to when the Ombudsman gives them the prosecutorial independence to do that, but their last update to us is, the case filing is very very near already.

Is Marcoleta's Defense Holding Up?

Marcoleta has pushed back hard, calling the plunder complaint politically motivated. He suggested the case is designed to keep him away from the Duterte impeachment trial.

Clavano's response was measured but pointed: the facts will speak for themselves.

When you read the case and you listen to the admissions and you listen to the interviews, you will see that the case is quite clear-cut. That's why it's hard to see where Sen. Marcoleta is coming from because the evidence used by investigators came from him himself.

In the ring, you cannot hide from the punches you throw yourself. The same holds true in public office. When the evidence comes from your own admissions, claiming political persecution is a difficult argument to sell to a public hungry for accountability.

The Filipino people deserve leaders who serve with clean hands and honest hearts. Whether the funds are public or private, the standard must remain the same. No one is above the law, and no amount of political spin can change what has already been said on record.

Can Plunder Charges Apply to Private Funds?

Yes. Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano confirmed that Republic Act 7080 does not limit plunder to public funds. Private money received through a pattern of corrupt acts, such as direct bribery from private individuals, can constitute plunder when the amounts exceed the P50 million threshold.

What Happens Next in the Marcoleta Case?

Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla indicated the plunder case could be filed in the Sandiganbayan this week. The resolution is in its final stages, though it has not yet been signed. Once filed, the case proceeds to trial before the anti-graft court.