A weak plunder complaint reveals politics disguised as law

 

By Rafael P. Tuvera

 

Civil society leaders recently filed before the Ombudsman multiple criminal complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte. The cases include plunder which center on her use of confidential funds during her tenure as Education Secretary. As expected, the filing has generated headlines, commentary, and renewed calls for accountability. What has been less discussed is what the cases actually mean in legal and institutional terms.

At the outset, it must be said that the filing of a complaint is not the same as the existence of a prosecutable case. In the Philippine system, the Vice President is an impeachable officer. This distinction matters. Under established doctrine, the Ombudsman may receive and investigate complaints against impeachable officials, but it cannot file a criminal case against them while they are in office. Prosecution can only come after impeachment and removal, or after the official’s term has ended.

This limitation is not a technical excuse. Rather, it is a constitutional design meant to preserve institutional balance. The result is straightforward. No matter how loudly the complaint is promoted, it cannot lead to a criminal trial at this time. Its immediate legal effect is limited to investigation and record building.

This reality raises a fair question. What then is the real purpose of the filing?

The answer becomes clear when one looks at the evidence cited. The complaint involves the use of public funds, and in cases of this nature, the most important and competent body is the Commission on Audit, the constitutional entity tasked to examine how public funds are spent. Its findings carry weight precisely because it operates independently and follows established audit standards.

In this case, COA has already stated that it found no anomalies in the confidential funds of the Vice President. This finding is not a mere casual remark but a result of a formal audit process. If the COA saw no irregularity, then any claim of plunder is evidentiary deficient.

Plunder is not a speculative offense. It requires proof of unlawful accumulation of ill-gotten wealth of a certain amount through specific criminal acts. Without an adverse audit finding, the foundation of such charge is weak. Complaints that proceed despite this absence resemble fishing expeditions rather than serious prosecutorial efforts.

This is where the character of the complaints comes into focus. The supporting evidence did not come from an audit agency or any other law enforcement agency. It came from activist groups and individuals who thrive on publicity. They present themselves as reformers, but their actions obviously suggest something else.

These people are not whistleblowers bringing forward hidden evidence. They are instead grandstanding activists, self-appointed reformers, and performative critics who rely on media attention rather than hard proof. Their language is sweeping, their conclusions firm, and their evidence is unconvincing.

The pattern they use is familiar. First, they file a complaint, then they call a press conference where they use the word “plunder” liberally and allow the legal limits to be ignored, then let the accusation do the damage even when prosecution is impossible. In this sense, the complaint functions more as a political statement than a legal instrument.

This is not to say that public officials should be shielded from scrutiny. Accountability is essential in any functioning democracy. But accountability requires standards and competent evidence. It likewise requires respect for institutions that are designed to audit, investigate, and prosecute. When these are bypassed or dismissed, what remains is not reform but public performance.

It is difficult to ignore the broader political arena. Sara Duterte remains the strongest political candidate for the 2028 presidential election. She commands name recognition, a solid base, and sustained public interest. Any effort that weakens her standing, even indirectly, carries with it obvious political value.

The timing and manner of the complaint fit this reality perfectly. It creates doubt without needing to prove guilt. It keeps her name tied to allegations without risking an actual court test. It feeds narrative while avoiding the burden of proof. This is a deliberate tactic.

Seen this way, the complaint is less about justice and more about positioning. It seeks to erode credibility early. It aims to shape perception long before the ballots are cast. Whether or not this strategy succeeds is another matter. What is clear is that the law itself offers little support for the drama surrounding the filing.

In the end, the public deserves clarity. The Ombudsman can investigate but cannot prosecute at this stage. The COA has found no anomalies, and without competent proof, claims of plunder and malversation remain claims and nothing more. Activism that ignores these facts may be loud, but not serious.

Political debate is healthy, and accountability necessary. But when legal processes are made tools for spectacle, the result is not reform, but noise. These grandstanders have simply replaced street protests and press releases with lawfare, their new weapon of choice.

   

Email: contact@asiancenturyph.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/asiancenturyph/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AsianCenturyPH

Substack:

Also read: