Graft and plunder in flood control cases
By: Atty. Wenver James C. Dela Rosa on February 12, 2026
THE flood control scandal that came to light in 2025 sparked public outrage and renewed scrutiny of government infrastructure projects. As authorities move to hold those accountable, two laws figure prominently in the cases filed: Republic Act (RA) 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and RA 7080, the Anti-Plunder Law, as amended by RA 7659.
Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (which penalizes public officers who, in the discharge of official functions, cause undue injury to any party or grant any private party unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence) is frequently invoked against those linked to the flood control issue, including several officials of the Department of Public Works and Highways.
In one Supreme Court case, the accused were alleged to have violated Section 3(e) for dispensing with the requirements of public bidding over certain construction projects. The Supreme Court reversed the Sandiganbayan’s conviction of the accused and ruled that while there might have been irregularities constituting violations of procurement laws, there was no evidence to prove that the petitioners were especially motivated by manifest partiality or evident bad faith.
RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659, requires that the ill-gotten wealth involved must amount to at least P50 million and must be obtained through a series of acts including, but not limited to, misappropriation of public funds, fraudulent conveyance of government assets and/or receiving kickbacks. The substantial amount taken from the public may explain why conviction for the crime of plunder imposes the much heavier penalty of reclusion perpetua (20 years and one day to 40 years) compared to conviction for corrupt practices under RA 3019, which is punishable by imprisonment for a maximum period of 15 years.
In plunder cases, considering the complex network of individuals who may have conspired as well as the threshold amount required, it is critical for the prosecution to identify the specific public officer who amassed the ill-gotten wealth. This is known as the “main plunderer doctrine.”
In one case, the Supreme Court concluded that the Sandiganbayan erred in denying the demurrer to evidence of the accused for violation of RA 7080. It was stated that, considering that 10 persons were accused of amassing ill-gotten wealth aggregating P365,997,915, it would be improbable that the crime charged was plunder if none of them was alleged to be the main plunderer. As such, each of the 10 accused would account for the aliquot amount of only P36,599,791.50, or exactly one-tenth of the alleged aggregate ill-gotten wealth, which is far below the threshold value required for plunder.
This ruling has drawn criticism for purportedly imposing a greater burden on the prosecution of corrupt public officials. It allegedly imposed an additional element for conviction which is not required under RA 7080.
It should be noted that, in a previous case, the Supreme Court did not consider the main plunderer. In this case, the accused filed a motion for bill of particulars seeking details of who among the five accused acquired the alleged ill-gotten wealth. The court held that such detail was not a proper subject of a bill of particulars because, in the crime of plunder, the amount of ill-gotten wealth acquired by each accused in a conspiracy is immaterial for as long as the total amount amassed, acquired or accumulated is at least P50 million.
Both RA 3019 and RA 7080 embody a graduated philosophy of accountability, calibrating criminal liability to the scale of corruption.
The flood control controversy reminds us of a hard truth, that is, combating corruption requires more than public outrage, it demands the will and determination to prosecute those responsible, regardless of the accused’s stature, power, wealth or influence.
When accountability becomes negotiable, that’s when culprits slip through the cracks.
Wenver James C. Dela Rosa is an Associate of Mata-Perez, Tamayo & Francisco (MTF Counsel). This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for professional advice where the facts and circumstances warrant. If you have any question or comment regarding this article, you may email the author at info@mtfcounsel.com or visit MTF website at www.mtfcounsel.com.
The article was published at the More to Follow Column at The Manila Times on February 12, 2026. Please see this link.