Senator posts P90,000 bail in one graft case tied to alleged flood-control project irregularities; separate plunder case remains pending before another court division
MANILA — Sen. Jinggoy Estrada personally appeared before the Sandiganbayan and posted P90,000 bail after the anti-graft court issued an arrest warrant and hold-departure order in a graft case tied to alleged irregularities in government flood-control projects.
The warrant and hold-departure order were issued by the Sandiganbayan Second Division, which is handling one graft case against Estrada. The bail allows him to remain at liberty while that case proceeds, but it does not dismiss the charge, lift the travel restriction or resolve the separate plunder case pending before the court.
Former Public Works Secretary Manuel Bonoan also appeared before the anti-graft court and posted bail. Bonoan is among the respondents named in cases arising from the same flood-control investigation.
The Office of the Ombudsman filed plunder and graft cases before the Sandiganbayan against Estrada, Bonoan and other respondents in connection with alleged irregularities in Department of Public Works and Highways flood-control projects. The cases followed a Department of Justice recommendation to bring charges over the alleged scheme.
Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano said prosecutors alleged that the case involved budget insertions, project allocations and kickbacks tied to public works projects. Clavano said the alleged kickbacks attributed to Estrada totaled more than P573 million. The allegation has not been proven in court, and Estrada has denied wrongdoing.
Two tracks before the court
The case now has two separate procedural tracks.
The first is the graft case before the Sandiganbayan Second Division. That is the case in which the court issued the arrest warrant and hold-departure order. Estrada’s P90,000 bail applies to that case.
The second is the plunder case before the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division. As of the latest court update, the Fifth Division had not issued an arrest warrant in that case because motions filed by Estrada remained pending. The same division is also handling another graft case tied to the flood-control allegations.
That distinction matters. The posting of bail in the Second Division graft case addresses the immediate arrest warrant in that case. It does not affect the Fifth Division’s handling of the separate plunder case, any pending motions or any future warrant-related action.
A hold-departure order restricts an accused from leaving the country while a case is pending unless the court grants permission. Estrada’s posting of bail does not automatically lift that order.
Law enforcement response
Before Estrada posted bail, the National Bureau of Investigation said it was prepared to enforce the warrant once formally transmitted by the court. NBI Director Melvin Matibag said the bureau would coordinate with other law enforcement agencies if implementation became necessary.
Local police officials in San Juan City also said they had not yet received the warrant and would coordinate with appropriate police units if the order were served on their office.
Because Estrada appeared before the court and posted bail in the graft case, the immediate arrest function of that warrant has been addressed. The bail, however, is not a ruling on the merits of the case. It serves as a guarantee that the accused will appear in court as required while the case proceeds.
Alleged flood-control scheme
Prosecutors allege that certain public works allocations were used as part of a scheme to generate commissions from government-funded flood-control projects. That allegation will have to be tested before the Sandiganbayan through admissible evidence.
The broader flood-control controversy has involved official reviews and public allegations concerning defective, incomplete or nonexistent infrastructure, as well as possible links among public officials, contractors and budget allocations. The case has drawn national attention because flood-control spending is central to disaster preparedness in a country regularly exposed to severe storms and flooding.
Under Republic Act 7080, the Anti-Plunder Law, prosecutors must prove that a public officer amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts meeting the statutory threshold of at least P50 million.
Republic Act 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, covers acts by public officers and private persons that constitute graft or corrupt practices, or may lead to them.
Jinggoy Estrada denies wrongdoing
Estrada has denied the allegations and said he will pursue legal remedies. He has questioned the handling of the proceedings and argued that evidence favorable to his defense was not properly considered.
Among the points raised by Estrada is a certification from the Senate Legislative Budget Research and Monitoring Office, which he said showed no record that he initiated budget insertions in the 2025 national budget. The Ombudsman, however, said the certification was limited and did not cover all stages of the budget process where insertions could allegedly be made.
The filing of charges marks the start of court proceedings, not a finding of guilt. Estrada and the other accused retain the presumption of innocence, and prosecutors must prove the allegations before the Sandiganbayan through admissible evidence and in accordance with due process.
