*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD, DM
There are times when people think that once a case is dismissed by one government agency, tapos na ang usapan. Wala nang ibang pwedeng mangyari. But in law, it doesn’t always work that way.
One issue can be looked at by different government agencies because each agency is asking a different legal question.
This is exactly why the recent controversy involving the Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) deserves a deeper understanding—not through politics, but through law.
Many people focused only on one question: Bakit hindi nadeklara ang malaking halaga ng pera sa SOCE?
The explanation given was simple. The money was allegedly received before the filing of the Certificate of Candidacy (COC). Since the recipient was not yet legally considered a candidate at that time, the argument was that the amount was not considered a campaign contribution under election law. Based on that reasoning, the COMELEC dismissed the election complaint.
From the perspective of election law, that explanation may answer the issue before the COMELEC.
But here’s where many people stop asking questions.
In reality, another legal question immediately arises.
If the money was not received as a candidate, then in what capacity was it received?
Because during that period, the recipient was still a sitting Congressman.
At dito nagsisimula ang ibang usapan.
Notice that the question is no longer about election law.
Hindi na ito tungkol sa SOCE.
Hindi na rin ito tungkol sa campaign contributions.
The question now becomes much simpler.
Why would someone give such a substantial amount of money to a sitting public official?
That is an entirely different legal inquiry.
COMELEC’s responsibility is to determine whether election laws were violated.
But other government agencies are tasked to determine whether anti-corruption laws may have been violated.
Magkaiba ang kanilang trabaho.
Magkaiba rin ang batas na kanilang ipinapatupad.
This is where Republic Act No. 7080, or the Anti-Plunder Act, sometimes enters public discussion.
Maraming tao ang akala, kapag umabot ng higit ₱50 million ang pinag-uusapan, automatic plunder na.
Hindi ganoon kasimple ang batas.
The ₱50 million threshold is only one requirement.
The law still requires proof that the money constitutes ill-gotten wealth and that it was acquired through one or more unlawful acts specifically listed under the Anti-Plunder Act.
In other words, malaking halaga ng pera alone is never enough.
The prosecution must still prove how the money was obtained.
The Anti-Plunder Act mentions several situations that investigators usually examine.
For example, did a public official receive gifts, commissions, kickbacks, percentages, or other financial benefits because of his public office?
Was there any government transaction connected to the payment?
Was there abuse of official authority?
Was public office used for personal enrichment?
These are the questions that investigators ask.
Hindi ibig sabihin na dahil may malaking halaga ng pera ay guilty na agad ang isang tao.
At hindi rin ibig sabihin na dahil na-dismiss ang election complaint ay wala nang ibang pwedeng tingnan ang batas.
Those are two completely different issues.
Think of it this way.
Suppose a driver is acquitted of a traffic violation because he was driving within the speed limit.
Does that automatically mean he cannot be investigated if the same vehicle was later found carrying illegal drugs?
Of course not.
Magkaibang batas iyon.
Magkaibang ebidensya rin ang kailangan.
The same principle applies here.
Election law asks one question.
Was this a campaign contribution that should have been reported?
Anti-corruption law asks another.
If this money was received while serving as a public official, why was it given in the first place?
Those are two separate legal conversations.
This is why lawyers often say that jurisdiction matters.
One government agency cannot answer every legal issue arising from one set of facts.
Each agency only answers the question assigned to it by law.
Apart from the Anti-Plunder Act, investigators may also examine other statutes if the evidence justifies it.
These include Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; Republic Act No. 6713, which governs the ethical conduct of public officials; Presidential Decree No. 46, which generally prohibits public officials from receiving gifts by reason of their office; and, in appropriate circumstances, certain provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery.
Again, this does not automatically mean that any of these laws were violated.
It simply means that these are the legal frameworks investigators may consider if the facts warrant further examination.
At ito ang mahalagang maintindihan nating lahat.
Sa batas, hindi porke’t may isang ahensiya na nagsabing walang election offense ay ibig sabihin wala nang ibang batas na maaaring tingnan.
Pero ganoon din naman sa kabilang panig.
Hindi rin porke’t may mga tanong tungkol sa isang transaksyon ay ibig sabihin may kasalanan na agad ang isang tao.
Our justice system is built on due process.
Every allegation must be supported by evidence.
Every investigation must be fair.
Every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court.
That is the very essence of the rule of law.
As citizens, our responsibility is not to convict people through social media nor to acquit them based on political loyalty.
Our responsibility is to understand how the law works.
Because in a democracy, justice is not measured by who shouts the loudest.
It is measured by whether every legal question is asked, every relevant law is applied, and every conclusion is supported by evidence—not by assumptions, emotions, or political narratives.
At sa huli, iyon ang tunay na diwa ng accountability.
Hindi ang pagpili lamang ng batas na pabor sa atin, kundi ang pagpayag na ang buong katotohanan ay siyasatin, saan man ito humantong, basta’t naaayon sa batas at sa due process.
#DJOT
*****************************************
_______________________________________
Dear friends,
*About the author:
