Obsolete Laptops, Outrageous Prices: Briones and Lao’s P2.4B Graft Nightmare

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — July 15, 2025

The Scandal in Headlines

Imagine a nation in lockdown, teachers scrambling for Wi-Fi to educate kids through screens, and the Department of Education (DepEd) squandering P2.4 billion on laptops so overpriced and outdated they could’ve been museum relics. In 2020, former Education Secretary Leonor Briones and Budget Undersecretary Christopher Lao greenlit a deal for 39,583 laptops at a staggering P58,300 each—equipped with sluggish Celeron processors that couldn’t handle a Zoom call. The result? A devastating 28,917 teachers left empty-handed, their distance-learning dreams crushed by a procurement scandal dripping with greed and incompetence. On July 11, 2025, the Ombudsman threw down the gauntlet, ordering graft and falsification charges against Briones, Lao, and a slew of DepEd and Procurement Service-Department of Budget and Management (PS-DBM) officials [GMA News]. Was this a desperate misstep in a pandemic panic, or a calculated heist of public funds? The stakes couldn’t be higher: billions wasted, education sabotaged, and public trust in tatters.

The Smoking Gun Evidence

The Commission on Audit (COA) didn’t mince words: these laptops were a rip-off. Their 2021 report exposed a procurement so rotten it screams malfeasance [COA Report via GMA]. Here’s the evidence that nails the case:

Overpricing: Originally budgeted at P35,046 per unit for 68,500 laptops, the price ballooned to P58,300, slashing the quantity to 39,583 units. That’s a P23,253 overcharge per laptop—nearly P1 billion in total excess. COA’s market checks were damning: in June 2020, similar laptops cost P32,500; by May 2021, mid-range models were P45,431. Even a MacBook Air retailed at P57,990 with superior specs.
Bid Rigging: The Ombudsman uncovered tweaked bidding documents favoring a lower quantity at a higher price, a move that “facilitated the overprice and the consequent undue injury” to the government [Inquirer].
Favoritism: Extensions, payment term changes, and other contract adjustments showed “unusually deferential treatment” to the Joint Venture consortium, hinting at a cozy deal.
Defective Goods: The laptops’ Celeron processors were too weak for distance learning, with 1,678 units rotting in a DepEd warehouse, deemed unusable by teachers.

The evidence paints a picture of a procurement process not just flawed, but rigged.

Legal Violations: Where They Went Wrong

The Ombudsman’s charges rest on three legal pillars: RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), RA 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act), and falsification under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Here’s how they broke the law:

RA 3019, Section 3(e) [Official Gazette]: Prohibits public officials from causing undue injury to the government or giving unwarranted benefits to private parties through:
- Manifest partiality: Tweaking bids to favor the supplier.
- Evident bad faith: Approving overpriced, substandard laptops.
- Gross inexcusable negligence: Failing to validate prices against market rates.
  The Ombudsman found a “complex scheme” where officials’ actions—approving inflated prices, altering bids, and granting extensions—betrayed a “common design” to fleece the public (Inquirer). Violations of Sections 3(a) (persuading rule-breaking) and 3(g) (disadvantageous contracts) are subsumed here.
RA 9184 [Official Gazette]: Mandates competitive, transparent bidding and the “most advantageous price” for the government. The price hike from P35,046 to P58,300, without justification, flouted Sections 10 (competitive bidding) and 12 (Bids and Awards Committee duties). The laptops’ outdated specs also violated technical suitability requirements.
RPC Article 171 [LawPhil]: Falsification charges stem from untruthful bidding documents and Senate testimonies, with some officials facing perjury for lying under oath.

Why did Briones and Lao sign off on this? Was it negligence so gross it’s criminal, or partiality so blatant it’s corrupt? The Ombudsman says both.

Likely Defenses… and Why They’ll Fail

Briones and Lao will fight back, but their defenses are flimsier than a Celeron laptop’s battery life. Here’s why they’ll crumble:

Pandemic Urgency:
- Claim: The COVID-19 crisis forced quick decisions amid global chip shortages.
- Rebuttal: COA found cheaper, better laptops available in 2020 (P32,500) and 2021 (P45,431) [GMA News]. P58,300 for a Celeron clunker? That’s not urgency; it’s exploitation.
PS-DBM’s Role:
- Claim: DepEd relied on PS-DBM’s expertise, with Briones claiming proper delegation in Senate hearings.
- Rebuttal: RA 6713 (Code of Conduct for Public Officials) holds leaders accountable for oversight [LawPhil]. As heads of DepEd and DBM, they can’t dodge a billion-peso blunder.
Market Conditions:
- Claim: Prices were market-driven.
- Rebuttal: COA’s data—P32,500 in 2020, P45,431 in 2021, even a MacBook Air at P57,990—shows the market didn’t justify P58,300. This defense is dead on arrival.
Good Faith:
- Claim: No intent to harm, just honest mistakes.
- Rebuttal: Lucman v. People (G.R. No. 230704, 2020) [LawPhil] holds that gross negligence alone triggers RA 3019 liability. Approving a 66% price hike without validation isn’t good faith; it’s gross incompetence.

The Ombudsman’s evidence—price discrepancies, bid rigging, and favoritism—overwhelms these excuses. The courts won’t buy pandemic sob stories when teachers paid the price.

Supreme Court Precedents That Seal Their Fate

The Supreme Court has a playbook for cases like this, and it’s brutal for corrupt officials:

Albert v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 164015, 2009) [LawPhil]: Defined undue injury under RA 3019 as any quantifiable loss—like the P1 billion overpayment here.
Sistoza v. Desierto (G.R. No. 144784, 2002) [LawPhil]: Clarified that bad faith isn’t always required; gross disadvantage to the government, like slashing 28,917 laptops, suffices for conviction.
Kilosbayan v. Morato (G.R. No. 118910, 1995) [LawPhil]: Demanded strict compliance with RA 9184’s competitive bidding rules. Tweaking bids to favor a supplier? Textbook violation.
Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez (G.R. No. 113105, 1994) [LawPhil]: Invalidated contracts for procedural flaws, signaling trouble for this rigged deal.
Villanueva v. People (G.R. No. 238815, 2020) [LawPhil]: Upheld graft convictions for procurement irregularities involving connivance, mirroring the Ombudsman’s “complex scheme” [Inquirer].

These precedents are a legal guillotine: overpricing, favoritism, and negligence in procurement betray the public and violate the law. Briones and Lao’s fate looks grim.

The Bigger Picture: Corruption in Crisis Spending

This isn’t just about laptops; it’s a glaring symptom of systemic rot in emergency procurement. The pandemic was a goldmine for corrupt officials, with loose oversight and urgent needs creating a perfect storm for abuse. The Ombudsman’s findings—bid rigging, price hikes, and supplier favoritism—echo scandals across government, from PPE contracts to infrastructure deals. Why do crises breed corruption? Because the system enables it.

PS-DBM’s role as a procurement middleman shields agencies like DepEd from accountability while enabling shady deals. RA 9184’s safeguards, like competitive bidding, are sidestepped under “emergency” pretexts. And where’s the technical oversight? Laptops too weak for Zoom shouldn’t pass muster. This case screams for reform:

Stricter Emergency Protocols: Clear guidelines to prevent abuse in crisis spending.
PS-DBM Overhaul: Strip its unchecked power as a procurement agent.
Technical Reviews: Independent verification of specs to ensure usability.
Whistleblower Protections: Encourage early reporting of irregularities.

Without these, the next crisis will just mean more billions down the drain.

Enough Is Enough: Fix the System, Punish the Guilty

The P2.4 billion laptop scandal isn’t just a legal battle; it’s a wake-up call. Teachers deserved tools to teach, not obsolete junk at obscene prices. The Ombudsman’s charges are a start, but justice demands more. Congress must overhaul RA 9184 to tighten emergency procurement, strip PS-DBM of unchecked power, and mandate real-time audits for crisis spending. The courts must send a message: no one’s above the law, not even ex-cabinet secretaries. And the public? Demand accountability—because every peso stolen from education is a lesson lost for a child. Will we let another scandal rob our future, or will we finally clean house?

Key Citations

Primary Sources

GMA News Online, Ombudsman orders graft charges vs. Briones, Lao over ‘pricey’ P2.4B laptops, July 11, 2025.
Philippine Daily Inquirer, Ombudsman on filing of charges vs. former Education Secretary Briones, others, July 11, 2025.
Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Official Gazette.
Republic Act No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act), Official Gazette.
Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct for Public Officials), LawPhil.
Revised Penal Code, Article 171 (Falsification), LawPhil.