23/05/2026
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION AND PLUNDER
FOR BAR EXAM PURPOSE
BY JUDGE M@RLO B. C@MP@NILL@
Section 2 of R.A. No. 7080, plunder is committed by any “public officer” who shall amass, accumulate, or acquire ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts (e.g., malversation, receiving kickbacks, gifts) in the aggregate amount or total value of at least P50,000,000.00 by himself or in connivance with his members of the family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates (cronies), or subordinates “other persons.” Any “person” who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense.
The “public officer” mentioned in Section 2 is the main plunderer, while the relatives, associates, subordinates, and “other persons” with whom the public officer connived in acquiring ill-gotten wealth and “persons” who participated and contributed to the commission of plunder are the secondary offenders.
The main plunderer must be a public officer, while the secondary offenders can be public officers or private individuals. Secondary offender in the law is described as “person” without distinction. Hence, the word “person” includes a private individual applying the principle that where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Ubilex non distinguit necnos distinguere debemus.
To be held liable for plunder, the public officer must amass, accumulate, or acquire ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts. The word “combination” means at least two different predicate crimes (e.g., malversation and receiving kickback or gift), while the term “series” means at least two predicate crimes of the same kind (e.g., malversation and malversation). (Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 157294–95, November 30, 2006)
Receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickback or any other form of pecuniary benefits from any person and/or entity “in connection with any government contract or project” is a predicate crime of plunder, which is similar to direct bribery.
Collecting or receiving commission by President Estrada from the sales of Belle Shares in the amount of P189,700,000.00, which was deposited in the Jose Velarde account, is a predicate crime of plunder. The commission was received by the President in connection with a government contract. (People v. Joseph Estrada, Sandiganbayan Criminal Case No. 26558, September 12, 2007)
Receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickback, or any other form of pecuniary benefits from any person and/or entity “by reason of the office or position of the public officer” is a predicate crime, which is similar to indirect bribery.
President Estrada received bi-monthly collections from “jueteng,” a form of illegal gambling, in the aggregate amount of P545,291,000.00, which was deposited in the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation. The share from the jueteng collection was not received in connection with a government contract or project. Jueteng operation does not involve a government contract or project. However, it is a predicate crime of plunder because the share was received by reason of his position as President. (People v. Joseph Estrada, ibid.)
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
Section 13 of RA No. 7166 provides the amount of money that a candidate or registered political party is allowed to spend for an election campaign. For example, candidates are allowed to spend P3.00 for every voter currently registered in the constituency where they filed their certificate of candidacy. There were 69 million voters in the 2025 Election. A person running for Senatorial election was allowed to spend P207 million (69 million voters x P3.00) for his campaign.
The Omnibus Election Code regulates campaign contributions. It provides rules on prohibited campaign contributions and on the reporting of campaign contributions and expenditure (SOCE) to the Comelec. However, the law fails to provide the allowable amount of campaign contributions. But of course, the amount of campaign contribution should not exceed the allowable amount of campaign expenses (e.g., P207 million).
For the purpose of the bar exam, receiving campaign contributions, the amount of which does not exceed the allowable amount of campaign expenses, does not constitute a predicate crime of plunder. In sum, receiving gifts by reason of his position as a public officer is indirect bribery, which is a predicate crime of plunder. (Note: Donors are also liable as secondary offenders) On the other hand, receiving contributions by reason of a public officer’s candidacy in accordance with the election law is not a predicate crime of plunder.
Note: The discussions are intended for those taking the 2026 Bar Exam. This is purely academic. Non-barristers are not allowed to comment. Contrary opinions will be entertained, provided that they are made in a respectful manner. Disrespectful comments will be deleted.
