MANILA, Philippines — Former senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. has made another legal move to challenge the P92.8-million malversation case linked to an alleged ghost flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan, asking the Sandiganbayan for permission to seek the dismissal of the criminal charge.
According to reports published by GMA News and ABS-CBN News on October 21, 2026, Revilla and his co-accused, former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) engineer Jaypee Mendoza, asked the Sandiganbayan Third Division for leave to file a demurrer to evidence.
The legal move challenges the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence. If the court grants the necessary permission and subsequently finds the prosecution’s evidence insufficient, it may dismiss the charge covered by the demurrer. However, the request itself does not mean the case has been dismissed.
The latest development puts the prosecution’s evidence under renewed scrutiny as the high-profile case involving alleged irregularities in government flood control spending continues.
Why Revilla wants the case dismissed
A demurrer to evidence is a legal pleading filed by the defense arguing that the prosecution has failed to present sufficient evidence to justify a conviction.
The Sandiganbayan must first address the request for permission to file the demurrer. The court’s decision on that request and any subsequent ruling on the sufficiency of the evidence will determine the next steps in the proceedings.
Revilla’s latest move follows earlier legal challenges involving the same case. In January 2026, his camp questioned the validity of the charge, arguing that he was not an accountable officer with custody or control of the public funds allegedly misappropriated.
The defense also questioned how the alleged acts attributed to Revilla established a criminal conspiracy.
The Sandiganbayan subsequently rejected his motion to quash the charge in February, allowing the case to proceed.
Sources: GMA News, October 21, 2026; Philippine Daily Inquirer, January 23, 2026.
What is the P92.8-million flood control controversy?
The case stems from allegations that government funds were released for a flood control project in Barangay Bunsuran, Pandi, Bulacan, despite the project allegedly not having been implemented.
The Office of the Ombudsman filed graft and malversation charges against Revilla and six former DPWH personnel in January 2026.
According to the prosecution’s allegations, the accused conspired to facilitate payments for the supposed project through falsified accomplishment reports, billing documents and disbursement records.
The project was reportedly awarded to a private contractor in March 2025. Investigators alleged that government payments were made despite the absence of the promised infrastructure.
The amount at the center of the case is approximately ₱92.8 million. The Ombudsman previously said at least ₱76 million had allegedly been released in connection with the project.
These claims remain allegations to be tested through the judicial process; they should not be treated as proof of the accused’s guilt.
Source: Philippine Daily Inquirer, January 17, 2026.
Why the earlier bail ruling matters
On July 31, 2026, the Sandiganbayan Third Division granted Revilla’s petition for bail and set his cash bond at ₱1 million.
The court found that the prosecution had failed to establish strong evidence of guilt for purposes of the bail application concerning the malversation charge.
In its resolution, the court discussed the lack of evidence sufficiently connecting the alleged acts involving project funding to an agreement for the recovery of advance kickbacks through malversation.
However, the bail ruling was not an acquittal. It addressed whether the evidence of guilt was strong enough to deny bail under the applicable legal standard, not whether Revilla was ultimately guilty or innocent.
The criminal proceedings therefore remained pending.
Source: Philstar.com, July 31, 2026; GMA News, July 31, 2026.
Investigators and the court have examined project records
The case has also drawn attention to the documentation used to monitor government infrastructure projects.
In June 2026, United News Philippines reported that the Sandiganbayan ordered a DPWH official to submit the audit log of the agency’s Project and Contract Management Application, which records information about project monitoring and changes made to project data.
The court sought records that could help identify who entered or modified information concerning the Pandi project.
Such records may be relevant in assessing how the project was documented and whether the reported progress was consistent with what actually happened on the ground. Their significance will depend on the evidence presented and evaluated by the court.
Source: United News Philippines, June 10, 2026.
What happens next?
The immediate question is whether the Sandiganbayan will allow Revilla and Mendoza to file their demurrer to evidence and, if permitted, whether the court will ultimately find the prosecution’s evidence insufficient.
The outcome could significantly affect the course of the malversation case. A dismissal based on a demurrer would depend on the court’s findings and the applicable procedural rules; denial of the request or rejection of the demurrer would allow the proceedings to continue along the relevant procedural path.
For now, the latest filing represents another stage in the legal battle over the alleged P92.8-million flood control project.
The central issue remains whether the prosecution can establish the criminal allegations against Revilla and his co-accused with evidence sufficient under the law.
This report will be updated as the Sandiganbayan issues further rulings.
