When Comelec absolves an ‘akyat-bahay’

“Why is an ‘akyat-bahay’ absolved of the crime, but those who helped him break into the house are charged?”

This was the analogy offered by Mike Defensor, one of the three so-called donors behind Sen. Rodante Marcoleta’s P75 million in “undeclared” campaign contributions, as he criticized the Commission on Elections (Comelec)’s decision to clear the senator of any wrongdoing while directing its legal department to pursue cases against them for failing to report their contributions within 30 days after the election.

I said to myself, what a perfect analogy. Indeed, “akyat-bahay.”

Like a thief in the night, Marcoleta appears to have pulled off the perfect heist. He did not disclose his campaign donations in the statement of contributions and expenditures (SOCE) he submitted after the 2025 elections and suffered no consequences from the very institution tasked with enforcing electoral accountability.

Marcoleta himself confessed, no less than on national television, that he did not disclose his campaign contributions because his donors wished to remain private. Besieged by election accountability advocates who filed a case against him, he argued that the funds he received were before the campaign period and, therefore, should be treated as “personal funds” under the “Peñera doctrine.” Under the said doctrine, he asserted that a person is only considered a candidate at the start of the official campaign period. He said that he received the money before the campaign started, thus the non-disclosure in his SOCE.

The Comelec, after the complete abandonment of any institutional backbone, did its own legal contortions to favor Marcoleta. Under existing election laws, it ruled, Marcoleta did not commit any election offense.

In its decision, the Comelec recognized that Section 109 of the Omnibus Election Code mandates that all campaign contributions must be disclosed through a candidate’s SOCE during the election campaign period. It also acknowledged that failure to comply with this requirement could lead to charges of election offenses, which carried a maximum penalty of six years imprisonment, a permanent ban on running for public office and a permanent loss of the right to vote.

However, the poll body argued that these conditions had been made ineffective by virtue of Republic Act 7166, the law providing for synchronized national and local elections and electoral reforms. It said that SOCE requirement violations are “decriminalized” and are merely considered civil liabilities, usually carrying fines from P5,000 to P20,000, depending on the position sought by a candidate, as stated by Comelec Chair George Garcia.

Nevermind, of course, that according to Section 14 of the same Republic Act, the filing of a “true, full and itemized statement” of all contributions and expenditures is still required. Have you conveniently forgotten this, Comelec?

The result? Marcoleta was completely cleared of any election offense. No admonition. No warning shot. Not even a symbolic slap on the wrist. In so many words, the Comelec said that its duty over this matter is simply “ministerial,” a bureaucratic euphemism for ineptitude.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Comelec’s legal interpretation is correct, the decision still raises a more fundamental question of judgment. Legality aside, where was Comelec’s institutional instinct to uphold the spirit of the law?

The Comelec could have plainly called out Marcoleta’s legal gymnastics for what they were, an obvious attempt to evade disclosure obligations. The election commissioners could have strongly reprimanded him.

And most importantly, they could have even pointed out that, even if the donations were received before the campaign period, Marcoleta, then a sitting congressman, could have been liable for indirect bribery, as public officials are prohibited from receiving such donations.

At the very least, the Comelec could have said these things. It could have at least pretended to walk and talk like an election institution. It could have at least barked, even if it doesn’t bite.

But no. The Comelec chose the path of least resistance. It opted for a narrow reading of the law that absolved Marcoleta while shifting all the blame to lawmakers for failing to amend the law to give them more teeth. So now Comelec is the victim in this story?

What makes this even more absurd is Comelec’s decision to go after Marcoleta’s so-called donors. Yes, you read that right. The one who received multimillion-peso donations committed no crime, but those who gave the money are criminally liable. Why? According to Comelec, they failed to submit reports of contributions.

Defensor, perhaps realizing that he and his fellow donors are being thrown under the bus, complained of “double standards.” Funny. It almost sounded like a tirade against Marcoleta himself, the very person he generously “donated” to. He argued, how can he be punished for failing to report a donation to a person who, by Comelec’s own ruling, committed no election offense upon receiving the funds?

This is why Defensor’s “akyat-bahay” analogy lands so well. The house is robbed, yet the robber walks free, not because no wrongdoing occurred, but because the police pointed to a law suggesting that what he did might only incur civil liability. Meanwhile, those who helped him “break in” are held accountable.

Congratulations, Comelec. You’ve managed not only to render yourselves useless in this case, but you also lawyered for Marcoleta. You helped craft the perfect blueprint for candidates who prefer to be non-transparent in their campaign contributions. From now on, all it takes is perfect timing; transact before the campaign period, and disclosure becomes optional.

And with that, the voters are left in the dark, none the wiser as to whether candidates are funded by China, drug lords, gambling syndicates, political dynasties, smugglers or worse.

With a Comelec like this, there are no election offenders.