EXPLAINER: Why Bong Revilla was granted bail in flood control case

Former Senator Ramon "Bong" Revilla Jr. was granted bail by the Sandiganbayan Third Division after being imprisoned for half a year for his alleged participation in the multi-billion peso flood control scam.

He was released from the Quezon City Jail Male Dormitory in Payatas on Friday, July 31, 2026, after posting a P1-million cash bond in connection with the malversation case.

This is not the first time the former senator has been implicated in a corruption case, having spent four years in detention before being acquitted of plunder charges regarding the pork barrel scam in December 2018.

So, what exactly happened, and why did the Sandiganbayan allow Revilla to post bail?

The case involves a P92.8-million flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan, which was found to have no existing structure.

According to the charge sheet, Revilla allegedly obtained a list of projects from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and secured the inclusion of the project in the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA).

The prosecution had accused Revilla of being a conspirator because he was meant to get “advance kickbacks."

One of the key pieces of evidence that the prosecution presented was former DPWH Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo’s testimony. Bernardo said that he was the one to hand Revilla the list.

Bernardo alleged that former DPWH Secretary Manuel Bonoan told him that Revilla had an allocation of P1.5 billion in the agency’s 2025 budget.

Former DPWH executives Henry Alcantara and Gerard Opulencia would be the ones to raise the money, but Bernardo admitted not knowing how they raised the money. He was only informed that they got the money from contractors afterwards.

Bernardo said that money from contractors was allegedly delivered to Revilla in the first quarter of 2025.

Meanwhile, Alcantara said that he had “no personal knowledge as to what accused Revilla did to facilitate or cause the inclusion of the subject project in the 2025 GAA.”

However, the dismissed DPWH engineer still maintained that Revilla allegedly facilitated the inclusion of the flood control project in the list through Bernardo.

Opulencia testified that he did not see the cash or witness it being placed in boxes allegedly delivered to Revilla. He also said he had no direct participation in the delivery.

No proof yet

Based on the prosecution’s testimonies, the Sandiganbayan ruled that there was nothing in the evidence showing how exactly Revilla facilitated the inclusion of the flood control project in the GAA for funding.

“The prosecution has not yet presented any proof that connects the alleged acts of obtaining the list and of facilitating the funding of the subject project to the eventual understanding that the recovery of the advance kickbacks allegedly paid to accused Revilla will be recovered by some of the co-accused by way of malversation,” the resolution, penned by Associate Justice Fritz Bryn Anthony Delos Santos, said.

The Sandiganbayan also noted that the prosecution failed to present "an iota of proof" showing that Revilla had either explicitly or implicitly agreed to receive an advance kickback.

At most, the evidence could suggest that Revilla may have had a clue that contractors would later recover the same funds that was taken from them from the sum appropriated to the project.

However, the anti-graft court said that this alone was not enough to satisfy the threshold of “strong evidence of guilt.”

The prosecution did not establish all elements of conspiracy, which would see parties agreeing to commit malversation, according to the court. It had merely been "anticipatory of future malversation," the court said.

The court also made a distinction of the different project stages: planning and/or proposal, finding, and implementation.

The Sandiganbayan said the alleged malversation occurred during the implementation stage of the project—a phase in which Revilla had no participation as a legislator at the time.

The Sandiganbayan also held that although Revilla chaired the Senate committee on public works at the time, this did not mean he had the authority to author a budget that was binding on the committee.

However, the anti-graft court emphasized that granting Revilla bail does not amount to a finding that he is innocent.

“It only means that the pieces of evidence, as adduced by the prosecution during the bail hearings and for the purpose of granting provisional liberty, were not strong enough to establish accused Revilla's participation in the elaborate scheme alleged in the Information,” the Sandiganbayan said.

"The prosecution may still offer, in the presentation of its evidence-in-chief, additional pieces of evidence to strengthen its claim that accused Revilla had indeed conspired with all or some of the co-accused as well as other persons to malverse public coffers by falsifying public documents to achieve such objective," it added.

Associate Justice Ronald Moreno joined Delos Santos in voting to grant Revilla's bail petition, while Third Division Chairperson Associate Justice Karl Miranda dissented.

In his dissenting opinion, Miranda said there was strong evidence that Revilla facilitated or caused the inclusion of the Pandi project in the GAA, particularly through his coordination with DPWH officials.

"It must nevertheless be reiterated that the acts of requesting lists of projects for funding and causing the inclusion of such projects in the GAA are not irregular or illegal per se. Hence, the first two acts imputed to Revilla, as stated in the Information, when taken alone, do not show any corrupt intent," Miranda said.

"However, when they are construed together with the allegation of his receipt of kickbacks or advance commissions, his supposed participation as a project proponent evidences his involvement in the conspiracy." –VBL, GMA News