Comelec: Marcoleta didn’t commit poll offense in campaign contributions

[Updated March 18, 2026, 4:16 p.m.]

MANILA, Philippines — The Commission on Elections (Comelec) has found out that Sen. Rodante Marcoleta did not commit any election offense regarding his campaign contribution disclosure, citing the lack of legislation that punishes his action. 

This came after the en banc, during its session on Wednesday, adopted the recommendation of the poll body’s Political Finance and Affairs Department (PFAD) to terminate the investigation “as there being no other evidence to show that Respondent committed any election offense.”

The en banc voted 6-0-1, with its chairperson George Erwin Garcia inhibiting from the case. 

“The Commission, after due deliberation, RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES to NOTE the findings of Political Finance and Affairs Department relative to the Fact-Finding Investigation Case No. 2025-032. In the Matter of Motu Proprio Investigation for Violation of Section 109 in Relation to Sec. 262 of the Omnibus Election Code [OEC] and Sec. 14 Republic Act No. 7166,” filed against Senator Rodante D. Marcoleta, Respondent,” the seven-page resolution read.

READ: Comelec bares ‘complications’ in Marcoleta’s Soce issue

How it came to be

This PFAD’s investigation stemmed from Marcoleta’s statements in response to queries about his election expenses, as stated in his statement of contributions and expenditures (Soce). In an interview with Net25, Marcoleta was asked why his expenditure in his Soce is much higher than his declared assets.

Marcoleta noted that he did not declare contributions upon the request of his contributors to remain anonymous. This prompted the PFAD to issue a show-cause order to the senator last November 24, requiring him to explain his non-disclosure of contributions in his Soce. 

In his affidavit submitted last January 6, while Marcoleta admitted that he received P75 million from three donors from three separate occasions, he argued that he received them way before the start of the campaign period for national candidates. Citing the Peñera doctrine, he also claimed that the contributions could not influence the election results because he was not yet considered a candidate. 

With this, the PFAD aimed to discuss in its investigation whether Marcoleta could be held liable for an election offense for his non-disclosure of contributions and if the contributors could also violate the election law for failure to report their contributions. 

PFAD’s findings

In an interview with reporters on Wednesday, Garcia cited that the Section 109 of the OEC mandates the full disclosure of contributions received, amount of expenditures, and unpaid obligations and other particulars under the Soce while the Section 98 of the OEC also states that the name of the contributor must be disclosed.

Garcia also said that the en banc agreed with PFAD’s disposition that non-disclosure of the required information in Soce is considered an election offense under Section 262 of the OEC.

But how did the PFAD arrive at its decision? Garcia pointed out Republic Act No. 7166 or the Synchronized National and Elections Act.

He said that upon the investigation of PFAD, it was found that the law, under its Section 39, repeals Section 109 of the OEC as an election offense. 

“It means that it is already decriminalized. It is no longer a criminal case. That’s why, if a candidate, based on the RA 7166 did not disclose what is required by the Section 109, then he is not criminally liable,” Garcia explained. 

READ: Comelec to Marcoleta: Explain alleged inaccuracies in SOCE

However, the Comelec en banc approved PFAD’s recommendation to file an election complaint before its law department for the conduct of preliminary investigation against Marcoleta’s campaign donors: Michael Tan Defensor, Joseph Varias Espiritu… “due to their failure to submit their respective individual Report of Contributions within thirty days (30) days after elections.”

Garcia explained that repealing the Section 109 of the OEC is only applicable to the candidates and not to the donors. Thus, the PFAD recommended the filing of a complaint so there will be a formal preliminary investigation.

“The law department is like the fiscal which will determine if there is probable cause to file a case against the individuals for election offense in the regional trial court then it will be sent to the en banc for us to decide on,” Garcia added. 

Garcia also shared that PFAD’s recommendation can still be a subject of review by the poll body’s law department. He added that they did not thoroughly discuss the possible administrative liability in the case, as the resolution will be submitted to the law department. 

“It means that the PFAD is already done with its investigation, it said that there is no criminal liability. But the other liabilities will be determined by the law department later on and will be recommended to the commission,” Garcia said. /apl /mr