COMELEC SAYS "COMPLICATIONS" ARE HOLDING UP ITS RESOLUTION ON MARCOLETA'S CAMPAIGN FINANCES — HIS SOCE DECLARES ZERO CONTRIBUTIONS BUT P112.86 MILLION IN SPENDING

Senator Rodante Marcoleta's Statement of Contributions and Expenditures for the 2025 midterm elections declares that he received exactly zero campaign contributions.

His reported campaign spending: P112,857,951.44.

His declared net worth in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth: P51.9 million.

On Wednesday, March 11, Commission on Elections Chairperson George Erwin Garcia broke his silence on why the poll body has not yet issued a resolution on the case. The answer, Garcia said, is a procedural tangle created by two overlapping investigations landing in the same office.

THE TWO CASES IN ONE OFFICE

Garcia explained it this way.

The Comelec's Political Finance and Affairs Department had already been investigating Marcoleta's SOCE after it issued a show cause order asking the senator to explain discrepancies between his public statements and his filed documents.

The PFAD completed its investigation and submitted a recommendation to the Comelec. Garcia did not disclose what the recommendation says.

But last week, a separate complaint arrived. Election watchdog Kontra Daya and the Advocates for Public Interest Law had filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman alleging that Marcoleta committed perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code. Because the Comelec has jurisdiction over SOCEs, the Ombudsman referred the complaint to the Comelec law department.

Now two cases involving the same person, the same allegations, and the same documents sit in two different divisions of the same institution. The PFAD recommendation needs to pass through the law department before it can reach the en banc. But the law department is already handling the Ombudsman referral.

"For instance, if the PFAD recommends filing a case or complaint based on perceived probable cause, it must go to the Comelec law department," Garcia told reporters in an interview, according to the Inquirer. "But what if the law department is already addressing a matter concerning the same individual?"

Garcia said the en banc discussed the issue during its Wednesday session and is working to resolve it.

WHAT MARCOLETA SAID ABOUT THE DONATIONS

In a television interview with Net25 last year, Marcoleta was asked why his campaign spending far exceeded his declared assets. He said he received donations from friends but chose not to include them in his SOCE because the donors requested anonymity, according to the Inquirer and SunStar.

Under Philippine election law, campaign contributions must be disclosed and donors must be identified.

Marcoleta's defense, as relayed by Garcia, rests on the Penera doctrine. The Supreme Court ruled in Penera v. Comelec that a person is only recognized as a candidate once the official campaign period begins. Accepting gifts or donations before that point, under this ruling, does not violate campaign finance laws.

"This is grounded in the Supreme Court's Penera v. Comelec case, which asserts that a person should not face penalties or charges for accepting gifts or donations prior to their official candidacy," Garcia said, according to the Inquirer.

THE LACSON ANGLE

The SOCE issue surfaced on the Senate floor on Tuesday, March 10, when Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo Lacson questioned why the Comelec had taken so long to resolve the case.

Lacson and Marcoleta have been locked in a running confrontation in recent weeks. In a privilege speech the same day, Lacson presented evidence that Marcoleta's positions on the West Philippine Sea mirror language on the Chinese Foreign Ministry's official website. Marcoleta denied the accusation.

Lacson separately told reporters that Marcoleta's admission of receiving undisclosed campaign donations could constitute "indirect bribery."

THE ESCUDERO COMPARISON

Garcia drew a contrast between the Marcoleta case and a previous SOCE issue involving Senator Francis Escudero, who received a campaign donation from a contractor.

In that case, Garcia said, the PFAD recommended closing the matter before any formal complaint reached the law department. The Escudero case was resolved without complications.

The Marcoleta case, Garcia said, is different. Two separate investigative tracks have converged in the same office, creating a procedural bottleneck that requires careful handling to protect the senator's right to due process.

Garcia said the Comelec acknowledges public interest in the case and is working to expedite its disposition.