No ruling yet to make Bonoan state witness

MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan has yet to decide on the motion filed by the Office of the Ombudsman to make former Department of Public Works and Highways secretary Manuel Bonoan a state witness.

Both the anti-graft court’s Second and Fifth Divisions have yet to issue resolutions on the ombudsman’s motion to discharge Bonoan as an accused, according to information that reached reporters.

In late June 2026, the ombudsman announced it was dropping the plunder charge against Bonoan over alleged taking of kickbacks worth P573 million from flood control projects. Also accused in the said case is detained Sen. Jinggoy Estrada.

Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla revealed his agency “secured a signed agreement” for the cooperation of the 80-year-old Bonoan, who remains hospitalized, and asked the Sandiganbayan to exclude him from the charges, according to earlier reports.

Meanwhile, the Second Division believed the trial for the graft case against Estrada should proceed, despite the latter’s claims that he did not make budget insertions in the 2025 national budget.

It earlier denied Estrada’s motion for reconsideration that sought to dismiss his graft case for “lack of merit.”

In its six-page resolution issued last July 10, it declared it found “no basis to reconsider its refusal to consider the alleged certification issued by the Legislative Budget Research and Monitoring Office (LBRMO).”

According to court records, Estrada’s camp “repeatedly invoked a purported LBRMO certification allegedly showing that Estrada was not responsible for the questioned budget insertions.”

“However, when directed by the Court to produce the document, counsel failed to do so and admitted that the same had not even been submitted during the preliminary investigation for consideration by the investigating authorities. Under these circumstances, the Court correctly refused to consider the document,” read a portion of the resolution penned by Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Geraldine Faith Econg, who is chairperson of the Second Division, and concurred with by members Associate Justices Edgardo Caldona and Gener Gito.

It noted Estrada “cannot invoke disputed and unverified matters outside the Information in support of a motion to quash grounded on Rule 117, Section 3(a) of the Rules of Court.”