FIRING LINE: The 2 antecedents

By Robert B. Roque, Jr.

Let me be clear from the outset: I have no intention of rushing to EDSA in defense of Sen. Rodante Marcoleta or his legal battle over what he insists was merely a campaign donation. I am not a member of Iglesia ni Cristo (INC).

That said, it is not difficult to understand why INC members poured into EDSA—and why even those outside their fold can grasp the anger that drove them there in protest against the Marcos Jr. administration.

What unfolded as a lightning protest that effectively paralyzed EDSA did not arise in a vacuum. It had two antecedents, both traceable to a single office: that of Ombudsman Boying Remulla.

The first antecedent is straightforward. Even before the protest gained momentum, the Ombudsman’s office had already set the prosecutorial machinery in motion against Marcoleta. According to Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano, the evidence came from Marcoleta himself — his own admission that he received ₱75 million in donations prior to filing his candidacy for senator, funds that were neither declared in his Statement of Contributions and Expenses nor reflected in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).

On the basis of that admission, plunder charges are now imminent. There is nothing extraordinary in this; the law is clear, and the matter is properly left to the Sandiganbayan for adjudication.

The second antecedent, however, complicates the narrative.

Former Public Works Secretary Manuel Bonoan, who was charged with plunder and graft alongside Sen. Jinggoy Estrada over alleged kickbacks from infrastructure projects, has now turned state witness. By the Ombudsman’s own account, Bonoan was present in meetings involving House leaders and Cabinet officials where the alleged manipulation of the DPWH budget was discussed and arranged. He was no mere bystander; he was, by all indications, a central figure in what could be one of the largest government-engineered scams in history.

Yet the same office is now moving to discharge Bonoan from his own plunder case so he can testify against former Speaker Martin Romualdez and former Appropriations chair Elizaldy Co, who are accused of orchestrating ghost flood control projects. The sums involved are staggering — reportedly reaching up to a trillion pesos.

Against this backdrop, it is hardly surprising that INC members feel aggrieved. Their prominent co-religionist faces swift prosecution over ₱75 million in undeclared donations, while a figure linked to a far larger alleged scheme is being granted state witness status.

One case advances to court with remarkable speed. The other, by the Ombudsman’s own spokesperson’s description, is still “getting stronger by the day.” It is this perceived disparity — in urgency, in momentum, and in prosecutorial resolve — that has fueled the protest on EDSA.

To be fair, the distinction may lie in the nature of the evidence. In Marcoleta’s case, the incriminating admission came directly from him. In contrast, those implicated in the DPWH controversy — Romualdez and Co — have denied wrongdoing, requiring prosecutors to build a more airtight case.

Even so, both cases demand equal urgency and vigor. Anything less risks reinforcing the perception of selective justice — justice that is swift when convenient and cautious when politically costly.

And once that perception takes hold, it ceases to matter whether it is true. It becomes real in the public mind — shared not only by INC members, but also by Duterte supporters and an increasingly skeptical citizenry.

*         *         *

SHORT BURSTS. For comments or reactions, email firingline@ymail.com or tweet @Side_View via X app (formerly Twitter). Read current and past issues of this column at https://www.thephilbiznews.com