MANILA, Philippines — Former Public Works and Highways Secretary Manuel Bonoan has been removed as a co-accused in major plunder and graft cases linked to the alleged ₱573-million flood-control kickback scheme involving Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, clearing the way for prosecutors to potentially use the former Cabinet official as a key witness.
But the ruling does not mean Bonoan has been completely cleared of every case connected to the controversy.
The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division voted 2-1 to grant the Office of the Ombudsman’s request to discharge Bonoan from the plunder and graft charges pending before that division, according to reports from ABS-CBN News, GMA News and the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
The decision could become a major turning point in the government’s widening investigation into alleged corruption involving billions of pesos in flood-control and infrastructure spending.
Why prosecutors wanted Bonoan out of the case
The Office of the Ombudsman had been pushing to remove Bonoan as an accused after he agreed to cooperate with investigators.
Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla confirmed in June that authorities had reached a cooperation agreement with the former DPWH chief and intended to use his knowledge of the department and its infrastructure-budget process in other flood-control investigations.
According to GMA News, Bonoan offered to provide a “tell-all” account and told investigators that his years running the DPWH gave him direct knowledge of matters potentially relevant to the probe.
Prosecutors argued that Bonoan could help explain not simply individual transactions, but how the alleged kickback system itself operated.
The Ombudsman described his cooperation as indispensable to uncovering what it called the “architecture” behind the alleged scheme.
That makes Bonoan potentially more valuable to prosecutors as a cooperating witness than as one of several defendants.
Sandiganbayan: Choosing witnesses falls under prosecutorial discretion
In granting the motion, the Fifth Division held that deciding which accused person should be used as a prosecution witness falls within the Ombudsman’s prosecutorial discretion.
The court also cited the Ombudsman’s authority under Republic Act No. 6770, or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, in relation to granting immunity to witnesses who cooperate with government investigations.
The ruling removes Bonoan from the two cases being handled by the Fifth Division.
A prosecution source told the Inquirer that Bonoan was “no longer an accused” in those two cases, although the source also said the remaining defendants could seek reconsideration of the decision.
What is the ₱573-million case about?
The cases stem from allegations that Estrada, Bonoan and several former DPWH officials participated in a scheme involving infrastructure and flood-control projects funded through the government’s 2025 budget.
The Ombudsman alleged that public money was directed toward selected projects in exchange for predetermined commissions or kickbacks.
Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano previously said investigators traced alleged illicit payouts totaling more than ₱573 million, which prosecutors claim were systematically delivered to Estrada.
Aside from Estrada and Bonoan, those charged in the Fifth Division cases included former DPWH officials Manny Bulusan, Arturo Gonzales Jr. and Denryl Caesar Cortuna.
The accusations remain allegations unless established by final judgment.
Estrada has denied wrongdoing. He previously pointed to a certification from the Senate Legislative Budget Research and Monitoring Office stating that there was no documented record showing he initiated budget insertions that became the source of the alleged kickbacks.
The Ombudsman, however, has argued that the certification does not account for every stage of the national budget process and therefore does not dispose of the prosecution’s allegations.
But Bonoan is not completely out of the legal fight
The biggest qualification to the September 1 decision is that the Fifth Division ruling does not automatically erase Bonoan’s separate graft case before another Sandiganbayan division.
In August, the Sandiganbayan Second Division rejected a similar attempt by prosecutors to remove Bonoan from a graft case involving Estrada.
That division ruled that changing the information after Estrada had already been arraigned could prejudice his defense by altering the prosecution’s theory—from one based on alleged collective criminal action to one focused more heavily on Estrada individually.
The Second Division nevertheless said prosecutors were not necessarily barred from later seeking Bonoan’s discharge as a state witness through procedures allowed under the Rules of Court.
The distinction is crucial: Bonoan has been removed from the plunder and graft cases before the Fifth Division, but that should not be reported as a blanket dismissal of every graft proceeding against him.
Bonoan’s testimony could reach beyond the Estrada case
The larger question now is what Bonoan may tell investigators—and who else his testimony could implicate or clear.
When the Ombudsman announced the cooperation arrangement in June, Remulla said Bonoan’s institutional knowledge could be relevant to multiple flood-control investigations and cases involving other officials.
Bonoan has already emerged as an important figure in the broader investigation.
In a separate proceeding reported by the Inquirer in August, the former DPWH secretary testified about the existence and allocation of what he described as a “leadership fund” in the department’s 2025 budget, highlighting just how far his testimony could extend beyond the charges originally filed against him.
Bonoan, 80, has also been under hospital arrest after the Sandiganbayan allowed him to remain at the PNP General Hospital because of serious medical conditions documented by his doctors.
What happens next?
For Estrada, the Fifth Division scheduled his arraignment for September 3, after earlier proceedings were delayed by pending motions.
For Bonoan, the September 1 decision could mark the beginning of a dramatically different role—from defendant in two of the biggest flood-control corruption cases to a potentially crucial government witness.
Whether his testimony ultimately strengthens the prosecution’s cases will depend on what evidence he can provide, how prosecutors corroborate it and how the courts evaluate challenges from the remaining accused.
So while the immediate headline is that Bonoan has been dropped from the Fifth Division cases, the more consequential story may only be starting:
What does the former DPWH chief know—and who could be affected when he finally tells prosecutors the full story?
WWC ONE MEDIA MJE
Leave a Reply