Precautionary HDO issued on Marcoleta, Defensor, and 2 others by Sandiganbayan

The Sandiganbayan Seventh Division has issued a precautionary hold departure order (PHDO) on Sen. Rodante Marcoleta, former Anakalusugan party-list Rep. Mike Defensor, and two others from leaving the country, in effect, barring the said persons from leaving the country.

The anti-graft court granted the Ombudsman's request to issue the PHDO on Marcoleta, Defensor, and businessmen Joseph Varias Espiritu and Aristotle Baluyut Viray, pending the preliminary investigation of a plunder complaint in connection with a P75 million campaign donation.

The subjects of the PHDO are facing preliminary investigation over alleged plunder, violations of a presidential decree prohibiting public officials from receiving gifts, and three counts of indirect bribery over P75 million in campaign donations in 2025.

"The undersigned investigators respectfully pray that the following respondents Rodante Dizon Marcoleta and private individuals Michael Tan Defensor, Joseph Varias Espiritu, and Aristotle Baluyut Viray be indicted for Plunder, as defined and penalized under Republic Act No. 7080, and for violation of Presidential Decree no. 46,” read the complaint affidavit, first reported by GMA News.

The Ombudsman field investigators also urged Marcoleta's indictment for indirect bribery.

The four were ordered to submit their counter-affidavits in the preliminary investigation being conducted now by the Ombudsman based on the order signed on May 21.

The recommendation stemmed from a previous case last year at the Commission on Elections (Comelec) where Marcoleta was investigated for non-disclosure of the donation in his Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE).

The Comelec, however, did not recommend any charges against Marcoleta, saying that such non-disclosure is no longer considered an election offense under the amended Omnibus Election Code.

'Unjust enrichment'

Ombudsman prosecutors said Marcoleta unjustly enriched himself by allegedly accepting an “unconscionable” P75 million gift from three individuals, according to the Office of the Ombudsman.

They said that while Marcoleta had stated in interviews that he received P75 million in campaign donations, the amount was not reflected in his 2025 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) or his Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) for his 2025 Senate bid.

“By accepting money from private individuals amounting to P75 million, he fell short of upholding the standard of responsibility and integrity," the Ombudsman prosecutors said.

Marcoleta was the representative of the Social Amelioration and Genuine Intervention on Poverty (SAGIP) party-list at the time of the donations.

"Respondent Marcoleta unjustly enriched himself at the expense and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines when he accepted such excessive sum of money from respondents Defensor, Viray, and Espiritu,” the Ombudsman said.

'Trumped-up charges'

In a privilege speech on Monday night, Marcoleta dismissed the Ombudsman complaint as false and an attack on legitimate dissent.

“The trumped-up charges filed against me and some of my friends are not merely legal accusations. They form part of a deeper and more nefarious design—to intimidate independent voices, to punish dissent, and to warn every senator that the price of asking hard questions could lead to personal damnation,” Marcoleta said.

“If the intention of these cases is to silence me, let me say this at the beginning: It has failed. I will not be silenced,” he added.

The Ombudsman also said the donor’s tax for the P75 million was paid only in December 2025, which prosecutors argued was belated and indicative of concealment.

According to the Ombudsman, Marcoleta received the P75 million on three separate occasions:

• Jan. 6, 2025 — P30 million
• Jan. 8, 2025 — P25 million
• Jan. 9, 2025 — P20 million

“The amount of P75 million was amassed and acquired by respondent Marcoleta in three separate occasions through unjust enrichment that clearly form a series or pattern directed toward the common goal or scheme of unlawfully enriching himself at the expense of the public," the Ombudsman said.

All three private individuals connived and conspired in concealing the real intention of the gift and belatedly filed the donor’s tax return as a mere afterthought,” it added.

The Ombudsman further argued that the alleged P75 million received by Marcoleta exceeds the legal threshold for plunder and that the three other respondents and all other participants to the alleged crime should be charged as co-conspirators.

According to the Ombudsman, the respondents’ potential liability for plunder cannot be extinguished or mitigated by the payment of donor’s tax, adding that such payment would not render Marcoleta’s acceptance of the P75 million above board.

Both the recipient and the givers should be held criminally liable, the Ombudsman said.

"Additionally, the donor’s tax returns show that the gifts given in January 2025 were paid only in December 2025 in violation of Section 103(B) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, which provides: ‘The return of the donor required in this Section shall be filed within 30 days after the date the gift is made and the tax due thereon shall be paid at the time of filing,’” it said.

“Marcoleta never offered any explanation as to the purpose of such an unconscionable gift given to him. Neither did he provide an explanation of any legitimate transaction that would justify the giving of such an excessive amount of money,” prosecutors added.

Based on these findings, Marcoleta and his co-respondents pose a clear flight risk, the Ombudsman said.

“They have been made fully aware that criminal prosecution against them is not merely speculative, but already imminent at this point," it said.

"They cannot plausibly claim ignorance of the ongoing proceedings or the overwhelming evidence against them, especially now that both mainstream and social media have begun reporting on the matter,” the Ombudsman added.

The court raised concerns over the respondents’ alleged financial capacity, saying their access to unusually large sums of money could enable them to evade authorities and conceal their whereabouts.

The Ombudsman further argued that individuals with access to substantial and potentially illicit financial resources “possess a far greater capacity to abruptly leave the country, sustain themselves abroad, and evade prosecution for an extended period.”

“Given the foregoing, the immediate issuance of a (PHDO) is imperative to secure the presence of the defendants, ensure their continued availability during the proceedings, preserve the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman as well as this Honorable Court, and prevent the frustration of the ends of justice,” it added. –NB, GMA News