Wazzup Pilipinas!?
It was a phrase reeking with defiance: “forthwith.” In releasing his response to the Commission on Elections (Comelec), Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero embraced the show-cause order as an opportunity — “to prove that … no law has been violated.”
But in politics—as in law—bold declarations can be both shield and sword. Escudero’s challenge now is to translate rhetorical confidence into legal clarity, in a case where public trust, institutional integrity, and the fine lines of election law all hang in delicate balance.
The Raw Facts: What We Know
Let’s lay out the current public record as cleanly as possible:
Escudero is being asked to explain a ₱30 million campaign donation, made during the 2022 senatorial campaign, from Lawrence Lubiano, president of Centerways Construction & Development, Inc.
Lubiano himself has admitted providing the donation, and claims it came from his personal funds, not from the corporate coffers.
The Comelec has issued a show-cause order (SCO) to Escudero, with a hearing scheduled for October 13.
Separately, Comelec is also asking Lubiano to explain whether his contribution violated Section 95 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), the provision that prohibits a person or entity holding government contracts from making campaign contributions to candidates.
Centerways is among the 15 contractors flagged by President Marcos Jr. for having received roughly 20% of government flood control project contracts.
The Comelec has itself acknowledged that the legal terrain is murky — in particular, whether a donation from someone who also owns a contracting firm is distinguishable if the donation is claimed to be from “private capacity.”
Meanwhile, Escudero has been slapped with an ethics complaint over the same issue.
Critics have flagged anomalies in Lubiano’s financials — among them, a “missing ₱35 million” discrepancy in his company’s audited financial statements for 2022.
Observers also note that after the donation, Centerways’ government contract awards surged. According to the ethics complaint, before the donation, the company had ~ ₱720 million across 12 contracts; after, it allegedly bagged ~ ₱15.9 billion across many more projects.
In sum: a massive donation from someone deeply intertwined with government contracting; a defense anchored in the “private capacity” claim; legal questions over how the OEC is to be interpreted; and accusations of financial discrepancies and post-donation windfalls.
The Law (and the Shadows within It)
Section 95, OEC: The Core Prohibition
The linchpin is Section 95 of the Omnibus Election Code, which states (in key part) that:
“No contribution for purposes of partisan political activity shall be made directly or indirectly by any natural or juridical person who has a contract to supply goods or services to the Government, or to perform construction or other work.”
Thus, prima facie, any contractor (or company playing that role) is prohibited from donating to candidates. The law is categorical in language: “no contribution … made … by any … person who has a contract … to supply … to the Government.”
But — and here’s where legal nuance, precedent (or lack thereof), and interpretation enter — there’s debate over:
How “made by” is to be parsed: If a contractor routes money via a personal account, is that “indirectly” made?
Temporal scope: Must the contractor hold a government contract at the time of donation? Or is any future or past contract sufficient?
Burden of proof: Who must show what? Does the candidate have to prove the donation is from personal funds? Or does Comelec need to prove contractor status and linkage?
Remedies and sanctions: What are the consequences (e.g. disqualification, fines, criminal liability) if the donation is deemed illegal?
In prior statements, the Comelec itself has marked the law as ambiguous: it is “not clear” whether a candidate who received funds from contractors can automatically be held liable, especially in borderline cases.
So Escudero’s claim that he welcomes the opportunity to prove no violation is in part a reflection of that unsettled legal terrain.
Other Relevant Laws & Ethical Norms
Republic Act 7166 & synchronized election law: Alongside OEC, campaign spending, finance limits, and reporting requirements are regulated by law.
Ethics / Code of Conduct: Even if a legal loophole is found, public officials are bound (in theory) to higher standards of integrity, avoiding conflicts of interest or creating the appearance of impropriety.
Transparency Requirements (SOCE, disclosure rules): Candidates are required to disclose contributions and expenditures. Any deviation or misreporting could trigger separate administrative violations.
Graft / Anti-Corruption Laws: If evidence arises of quid pro quo (i.e., the donation was in expectation of favorable treatment), then anti-graft statutes might come into play.
Evaluating the Claims
Let’s return to the key claim: that Escudero’s stand is “own interpretation of the law”—and whether or not that is defensible, or an overreach.
Claim 1: “No law has been violated”
This is a bold, categorical claim. In the legal world, there are very few situations where such absolutism is safe—especially in contested terrain.
Given that the OEC prohibits contributions from contractors directly or indirectly, the burden (in a strict reading) would seem to fall severely on Escudero to show the donation was indeed from personal funds and not effectively a conduit for corporate money.
The admitted fact that Centerways (Lubiano’s company) is a contractor adds weight to the presumption that the donation could run afoul of Section 95.
Furthermore, critics point to possible financial irregularities in Lubiano’s books (e.g. the missing ₱35 million) and the large jump in his contract awards soon after the donation — circumstantial evidence at least, of suspicious timing.
That said, because Philippine jurisprudence and administrative enforcement on this precise set of facts may be sparse, Escudero might indeed have a fighting chance. But the assertion that no law can possibly have been violated is legally overconfident at best and risky at worst.
Thus: the claim is not definitively false, but it is far from proven. On the balance, it rests on a lean legal argument.
Claim 2: Escudero is simply being “misunderstood” and is open to transparent review
This plays well politically and is rhetorically safer: the posture of cooperation is typically more defensible than obstinacy.
It may also reflect real confidence in fact-based defenses (e.g., audit trails showing personal funds used). If Escudero can trace the cash flow convincingly, he may evade sanctions.
But cooperation doesn’t guarantee immunity: the Comelec has institutional incentives to enforce the law, to maintain public trust, and to signal that even powerful actors are not above scrutiny.
In short: the posture of openness is prudent, but not by itself exculpatory.
Dramatic Stakes: Why This Matters Beyond One Senator
This is not just about Escudero. It’s a fulcrum in a larger war over elite power, electoral integrity, and the credibility of institutions.
Precedent & Deterrence
If the Comelec allows this case to quietly die or to be narrowly excused, it risks sending a signal: large contractors can still bankroll politicians with impunity, so long as they mask it as “personal funds.” That would hollow out the integrity of campaign finance laws.
Public Trust & Moral Authority
In a democracy, governance is not only about legality but legitimacy. Citizens must believe that rules apply even-handedly, that public office is not a means of enrichment, and that “one rule for the elite, another for the masses” is not the de facto norm.
Ethics vs. Legalism
Even if Escudero persuades Comelec that no law was broken, the court of public opinion may judge differently. The moral question looms: should a candidate accept massive donations from someone whose business is deeply entangled with government contracts—regardless of clean legal boundaries?
Broader Context: Flood Control, Contractor Monopolies, and Infrastructure Controversies
The donation in question comes in the shadow of controversies over flood control projects, ghost projects, and a concentration of government contracts among a small set of favored firms.
When contractors wield large political influence, the risk of capture, favoritism, and corruption multiplies. Politically, this case thus becomes a test—not only of Escudero’s accountability, but of the broader architecture of Philippines’ procurement and electoral systems.
What to Watch for in the Comelec Proceeding (Oct 13 and Beyond)
Documentation of Fund Origins
Can Escudero and Lubiano conclusively trace the ₱30 million as coming from purely personal accounts, with verifiable bank records, tax returns, etc.?
Timing and Contract Awards
Can the sudden rise in Centerways’ contract awards be plausibly disconnected from the donation? The ethics complaint already asserts a strong correlation.
Interpretation of “Indirect” Contributions
How the Comelec resolves whether routing money through a personal account is still “indirect” corporate contribution will be pivotal.
Burden of Proof & Legal Standards
Who must prove what? Will Comelec require Escudero to meet a high standard of proof, or simply a plausible explanation?
Sanctions
If Comelec finds a violation, what follows? Disqualification? Fines? Referral for criminal investigation? The political cost is also unknown.
Appeals & Judicial Oversight
Whatever Comelec rules will likely be challenged in courts. The Supreme Court or electoral tribunals may eventually weigh in, setting binding precedent.
Final Assessment: Bold Move, Precarious Ground
Sen. Escudero’s defiant embrace of a show-cause order — a posture of transparency masked as challenge — is strategically clever. In a legal system riddled with ambiguities, he may well survive this ordeal. But his sweeping claim, “no law has been violated,” is more a political gambit than a settled legal conclusion.
The Comelec, in turn, faces a delicate task: enforcing the law credibly, deterring abuse, yet respecting procedural fairness. — especially in a context where top officials (Marcos, Duterte) are also under scrutiny for campaign funding from contractors.
Ethically, even if Escudero’s defense succeeds, the episode underscores the pressing need to tighten campaign finance law, close loopholes, better define “indirect contributions,” and bolster transparency institutions.
In the dramatic theater of Philippine politics, this is a high-stakes trial. The outcome may reshape how power, money, and accountability interact in the years ahead.
Ross is known as the Pambansang Blogger ng Pilipinas - An Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Professional by profession and a Social Media Evangelist by heart.
.jpg)
Post a Comment