Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla has urged the Supreme Court to reconsider and reverse the “main plunderer” doctrine, arguing that it makes it more difficult to prosecute individuals accused of plunder, particularly in connection with the flood control scandal.
Remulla said Republic Act No. 7080, or the Anti-Plunder Law, does not require prosecutors to identify and prove the existence of a principal mastermind behind a plunder scheme before other individuals involved can be held accountable.
The doctrine was established by the Supreme Court in its 2016 ruling in Macapagal-Arroyo v. People. Under the doctrine, prosecutors must identify the alleged main plunderer and prove that person’s identity beyond a reasonable doubt.
According to Remulla, the requirement could make it more difficult to prosecute individuals when allegedly plundered funds pass through dummy entities, intermediaries, companies and multiple bank accounts designed to conceal the identities of the actual beneficiaries.
The Ombudsman said this concern was particularly relevant to alleged irregularities involving flood control projects, where money may pass through multiple contractors and transactions.
Remulla argued that the doctrine could create an obstacle to holding individuals accountable for large-scale corruption involving public funds.
He called on the high court to review the legal principle, saying the requirement to establish the identity of a principal plunderer could hinder effective prosecution in cases involving complex financial arrangements.
The appeal seeks a reconsideration of the legal standard applied in plunder cases. Any change to the doctrine would depend on the Supreme Court’s action.
The issue centers on how prosecutors must establish responsibility in alleged plunder schemes under the Anti-Plunder Law.
The Ombudsman’s request comes amid concerns over alleged irregularities in flood control projects, where investigators may need to trace funds across multiple transactions and entities to determine who benefited.
Remulla maintains that the law does not expressly require prosecutors to prove the identity of a main plunderer before pursuing other individuals allegedly involved in a scheme.
