MANILA, Philippines — A television interview featuring Sen. Rodante Marcoleta has taken center stage in the Sandiganbayan proceedings over the P75-million plunder case against him, putting his own previous statements under scrutiny as prosecutors seek to establish the strength of their evidence.
The footage came from Marcoleta’s November 8, 2025 appearance on the Net25 program “Sa Ganang Mamamayan,” where he discussed receiving financial contributions from people who supported his bid for the Senate.
During the program, Marcoleta acknowledged receiving money from several supporters but explained that the donors did not want their identities disclosed. His remarks later became part of the factual background examined by investigators and prosecutors in connection with the P75-million case.
The issue resurfaced during the senator’s ongoing petition for bail before the Sandiganbayan Third Division, where the prosecution is required to demonstrate that the evidence of guilt is strong.
TV co-host asked to testify
The prosecution sought to use the television recording as part of its evidence and raised the testimony of Nelson Lubao, Marcoleta’s co-host on the program.
Lubao asked the court to excuse him from testifying, arguing that his participation was limited to the television program. Prosecutors, however, maintained that his testimony was relevant to establishing the circumstances surrounding the video.
The prosecution offered to stipulate to the authenticity of the recording, but Marcoleta’s defense rejected the proposal. Because the defense did not agree to the stipulation, Lubao remained expected to testify regarding the video.
That development gives the television footage added significance in the bail proceedings: rather than simply being a public interview, the recording is now being examined in a courtroom setting as part of the evidence surrounding the disputed P75 million.
What did Marcoleta say?
In the 2025 program, Marcoleta described the money as assistance from people who believed he deserved to win a Senate seat.
He also explained that the donors allegedly asked him not to identify them publicly. His statements later became relevant to the investigation into whether the money should have been reported as campaign contributions.
The controversy centers on P75 million that prosecutors say was received by Marcoleta but not properly declared in his election and financial disclosures.
The money allegedly came from three individuals: former lawmaker Mike Defensor, businessman Joseph Espiritu, and businessman Aristotle Viray. Prosecutors have charged all four in connection with the case.
Comelec and Sandiganbayan issues collide
The case has also triggered a jurisdictional dispute.
During an earlier bail hearing, a Comelec official testified that Marcoleta had described the P75 million in a verified position paper as personal funds, saying the money was not earmarked or restricted for campaign purposes and had been received before the campaign period. The Comelec witness also clarified that the poll body itself had not determined whether the funds legally constituted election contributions or personal funds.
Marcoleta’s lawyers subsequently argued that the campaign-donation issue should fall under Comelec jurisdiction rather than the Sandiganbayan.
But Comelec Chairman George Erwin Garcia later said the poll body had already exercised its jurisdiction over the campaign-finance aspect of the controversy. Garcia said Comelec had terminated its investigation after determining that there was insufficient evidence to establish an election offense.
The distinction is important because the plunder case is a separate criminal proceeding. The Department of Justice has maintained that the Sandiganbayan has authority over the plunder prosecution and that the funds involved do not necessarily have to be public money for a plunder case to proceed under the circumstances alleged by prosecutors.
Why the television footage matters
The central question before the Sandiganbayan is not simply whether Marcoleta appeared on television or admitted receiving money.
The court must ultimately determine whether the prosecution has presented strong evidence of guilt, the standard relevant to the accused’s request for bail in the non-bailable plunder case. The Sandiganbayan previously scheduled multiple hearing days for the prosecution to present its witnesses and evidence.
The television recording therefore provides prosecutors with a potentially important piece of evidence because it contains Marcoleta’s own public discussion of the money, the donors and the circumstances surrounding its receipt.
At the same time, the defense retains the opportunity to challenge how the statements should be interpreted and what legal significance they carry.
The bigger legal battle
Marcoleta and his co-accused have pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The senator also faces separate cases under Presidential Decree No. 46, a law prohibiting public officials from receiving gifts, presents or other benefits in connection with their official duties. Marcoleta posted bail for those cases, but he remains detained because the plunder case is non-bailable.
Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayan has continued hearing the prosecution’s evidence, including documents and witnesses from the Bureau of Internal Revenue concerning the financial transactions and donor-tax records.
The proceedings have also drawn attention to how media interviews with detained accused persons are conducted. The Sandiganbayan Third Division recently announced tighter procedures for media interviews involving persons deprived of liberty, including advance coordination with the court and limits on interviews.
For Marcoleta, however, the bigger question now goes beyond what he said on television. The Sandiganbayan must determine whether those public statements, together with the financial records and other prosecution evidence, are strong enough to affect his bid for bail in the P75-million plunder case.
Leave a Reply