MANILA, Philippines — A television interview that once appeared to be an explanation from Sen. Rodante Marcoleta about his campaign finances is now being used by government prosecutors as evidence in his bid for temporary freedom from detention.
The Office of the Ombudsman on Monday presented video footage of Marcoleta discussing campaign contributions during a television program, bringing his own statements into the center of the Sandiganbayan proceedings on his petition for bail in the P75-million plunder case.
The video was played before the Sandiganbayan Third Division as prosecutors continued presenting evidence against Marcoleta and his co-accused.
The case revolves around allegations that Marcoleta received P75 million in donations from three individuals but failed to properly disclose the money as campaign contributions. Prosecutors have alleged that the transactions form part of an unjust-enrichment scheme.
Marcoleta has pleaded not guilty and has denied liability.
What Marcoleta said on television
The prosecution’s interest in the television interview stems from an episode in which Marcoleta was asked how his campaign expenditures could be significantly higher than the assets he reported.
According to GMA News, broadcaster Nelson Lubao interviewed Marcoleta on a November 8, 2025 Net 25 program and questioned him about the discrepancy.
Marcoleta explained that the money came from friends who did not want their identities disclosed. He said that declaring a contribution would require identifying the donors, and that he therefore reported zero contribution. He also said he had been told the money could instead be treated as a loan.
That explanation has since become a significant piece of evidence for prosecutors.
The Sandiganbayan allowed the video to be presented despite the defense’s earlier refusal to stipulate that the YouTube link containing the interview was authentic. Prosecutors said the video was not spliced, according to reports on Monday’s proceedings.
The P75-million question
The controversy dates back to the money Marcoleta allegedly received from three individuals: former Anakalusugan party-list lawmaker Michael “Mike” Defensor, businessman Joseph Espiritu, and businessman Aristotle Viray.
The Ombudsman alleges that Marcoleta accepted P75 million from the three while he was an incumbent Sagip party-list representative and that the amount was not properly disclosed.
The prosecution has also raised questions over the timing of donor-tax payments.
GMA News previously reported that prosecutors alleged the donor’s tax on three tranches of the contribution made in January 2025 was paid only in December 2025. Prosecutors cited the National Internal Revenue Code provision requiring donor-tax returns to be filed and the tax paid within the prescribed period following the gift.
During an earlier bail hearing, a Comelec official testified that Marcoleta had characterized the P75 million in his position paper as money received in his personal capacity rather than funds specifically earmarked for his campaign.
The official also said Comelec itself had not made a determination on the legal nature of the money.
BIR records also entered the case
The televised remarks are only one part of the prosecution’s evidence.
During the second bail hearing, Bureau of Internal Revenue officials testified regarding donor-tax returns connected to the alleged contributions.
Radyo Pilipinas reported that BIR records included a P2-million donor-tax payment attributed to Espiritu, a P1.6-million payment attributed to Viray, and a P2.2-million payment attributed to Defensor.
The Daily Tribune likewise reported that three BIR witnesses were presented during the second hearing and that the documents were admitted into the records despite an objection from Viray’s camp.
TV interviewer was also subpoenaed
The television interview has become important enough that the broadcaster who questioned Marcoleta was subpoenaed to testify.
Nelson Lubao subsequently asked the Sandiganbayan to excuse him from appearing as a prosecution witness. The court gave both sides 10 days to comment on his request.
The prosecution wanted Lubao to help establish the authenticity and context of the interview that contains Marcoleta’s statements about the contributions.
Bail does not mean acquittal
Marcoleta’s current legal battle is specifically about bail in the plunder case, not about determining his guilt or innocence at this stage.
He has already posted P90,000 bail in three separate cases involving alleged violations of Presidential Decree No. 46, a law prohibiting public officials from receiving gifts or benefits in connection with their official duties.
However, that did not result in his release because the separate P75-million plunder case remains pending. GMA News reported that plunder is a non-bailable offense as a matter of right, requiring the court to determine whether bail should nevertheless be granted under the circumstances.
Marcoleta and his co-accused have pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The senator has also maintained that the accusations against him are politically motivated, particularly amid his criticism of the administration’s investigation into alleged irregularities in government flood-control projects.
What happens next?
The Sandiganbayan Third Division is continuing to weigh the prosecution’s evidence as it determines whether Marcoleta should be granted bail while the plunder case proceeds.
For prosecutors, his televised explanation could be significant because it provides a direct account of how Marcoleta himself described the money, the donors and the decision not to disclose the contributions.
For the defense, however, the ultimate question remains whether the prosecution has established the legal basis necessary to justify continued detention and defeat the petition for bail.
The television interview may have been recorded months before the case reached this stage—but inside the courtroom, those old remarks have now become part of a much bigger legal battle over P75 million, campaign-finance disclosures and alleged unjust enrichment.
Leave a Reply