Plunder and Graft Allegations: A Deep Dive into Duterte and Go’s Legal Troubles

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo

Background

The current legal saga involving former President Rodrigo Duterte and Senator Christopher “Bong” Go traces back to events as early as 2018. At that time, Senator Antonio Trillanes IV was poised to investigate government contracts awarded to firms linked to Go’s family. Trillanes had scheduled committee hearings to scrutinize these contracts, alleging conflicts of interest and potential graft in the awarding process. His efforts were abruptly halted when Duterte issued a proclamation voiding Trillanes’ amnesty, leading to the senator’s highly publicized arrest.

The cancellation of the scheduled Senate hearings meant Trillanes could not present his evidence, which reportedly included details of public works contracts awarded to relatives of high-ranking government officials. During this period, a team from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) was dispatched to Davao Region to assess the status of these contracts, indicating heightened scrutiny and anticipation surrounding Trillanes’ planned investigations.

Duterte’s proclamation nullifying Trillanes’ amnesty generated widespread controversy and drew attention away from the impending Senate hearings. The subsequent events underscored political tensions and accusations of legal maneuvering to thwart accountability efforts related to government contracts and potential conflicts of interest.

Legal and Political Entanglements

The relationship between Duterte, Go, and Trillanes is complex. Duterte, a former mayor of Davao City, rose to national prominence with his tough-on-crime stance, often surrounded by allegations of extrajudicial killings. Go has been Duterte’s loyal aide for years, serving as his special assistant and later as a senator. Trillanes, a former Navy officer turned senator, has been a vocal opponent of Duterte, frequently challenging his policies and actions. This historical backdrop sets the stage for the current legal drama.

The Case for Prosecution

The prosecution’s case against Duterte and Go hinges on several key provisions of Philippine law, primarily focusing on the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019) and the Plunder Law (Republic Act No. 7080).

1. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019)

Section 3(h) and 3(i) of RA 3019 are pivotal. These sections prohibit public officials from having a direct or indirect interest in any transaction that involves their office and from giving undue advantage to any party. The awarding of contracts to CLTG Builders and Alfrego Builders & Supply, allegedly owned by Go’s family, could be seen as a clear violation of these provisions.
Manifest Partiality: The repeated awarding of contracts to these firms, despite their poor track record, suggests manifest partiality and a conflict of interest.
Undue Injury to the Government: The delayed and substandard projects mentioned in the PCIJ report imply that the government suffered undue injury, another violation under RA 3019.

2. Plunder Law (RA 7080)

Threshold Amount: For a plunder charge to stick, the amount involved must exceed P50 million. Trillanes’ complaint alleges that the contracts awarded amount to P6.6 billion, far surpassing this threshold.
Ill-Gotten Wealth: The law defines plunder as the acquisition of ill-gotten wealth through a series of overt or criminal acts, including taking undue advantage of one’s official position. The evidence presented suggests that Duterte and Go used their positions to unjustly enrich themselves and their associates.

The Case for the Defense

The defense for Duterte and Go will likely focus on several key arguments:

1. Lack of Direct Evidence

The defense may argue that there is no direct evidence linking Duterte and Go to the alleged plunder and graft. They may claim that the contracts were awarded through legal processes and that there was no undue influence or partiality.
Precedent: They could cite the acquittal of Senators Bong Revilla and Jinggoy Estrada in similar cases, where the Sandiganbayan ruled that the specific elements of plunder were not met.

2. Compliance with Legal Procedures

Duterte and Go might argue that all transactions followed the necessary legal procedures and that any delays or substandard work by the contractors were not within their control.
Section 4(a) of RA 3019: This provision allows exceptions for acts done in the performance of official duty. The defense could claim that Duterte and Go were merely performing their official duties without any intent of wrongdoing.

3. Political Motivation

The defense could also argue that the charges are politically motivated, aimed at discrediting Duterte and Go. They might emphasize Trillanes’ history of opposition to Duterte as a basis for this claim.

Legal Procedures

The following legal procedures will likely be followed in this case:

Filing of Complaint: The complaints have been filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ). Given the concurrent jurisdiction, the DOJ can conduct the initial investigation.
Preliminary Investigation: The DOJ will conduct a preliminary investigation to determine if there is probable cause to charge Duterte and Go.
Referral to the Ombudsman: The DOJ may refer the case to the Office of the Ombudsman, which has the mandate to prosecute cases involving public officials.
Formal Charges: If probable cause is established, formal charges will be filed with the Sandiganbayan, the special court that handles cases of graft and corruption.
Trial: The trial process will involve the presentation of evidence by both the prosecution and defense, followed by a ruling by the Sandiganbayan.

Anticipated Ruling

Based on the evidence presented and the legal arguments on both sides, a ruling on this case would hinge on the interpretation of the elements of graft and plunder under Philippine law.

For Graft:

If the evidence shows manifest partiality and undue injury to the government, a conviction under RA 3019 is likely. The repeated awarding of contracts to firms owned by Go’s family, despite their poor performance, suggests a violation of anti-graft laws.

For Plunder:

The prosecution must prove that the amount involved exceeds P50 million and that there was an intent to unjustly enrich themselves. Given the significant amounts mentioned, if the prosecution can demonstrate the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth, a conviction for plunder could be justified.

Overall:

If the prosecution can substantiate their claims with concrete evidence, a ruling in favor of conviction for both graft and plunder would reinforce the rule of law and accountability in public office.

Conclusion

The allegations against Duterte and Go are serious, with significant legal and political ramifications. A thorough and fair investigation, followed by a transparent legal process, is essential to uphold justice. Whether or not the charges result in a conviction, this case highlights the importance of vigilance and accountability in government operations. As the legal proceedings unfold, the eyes of the nation, and indeed the world, will be watching closely.