A perjury complaint has been filed against Senator Rodante Marcoleta before the Office of the Ombudsman for allegedly failing to disclose his 2025 Senate campaign donors. The complaint was filed on December 5 by election watchdog group Kontra Daya, led by Danilo Arao, along with Advocates of Public Interest Law Alexander Lacson and Dino de Leon. It pertains to statements Marcoleta made in a television interview on November 7, in which he admitted receiving campaign contributions but declared zero contributions in his sworn Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE). The complaint argues that by his own admission, Marcoleta publicly acknowledged receiving campaign contributions for the May 12, 2025 senatorial elections but deliberately declared zero contributions in his sworn SOCE. This constitutes perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes anyone who willfully asserts a falsehood on a material matter after taking an oath before a competent officer. Marcoleta had said in the interview, "When you put a figure in the contribution, I will be forced to disclose their names... I will be forced to make it zero." As a lawyer and long-time public official, he understood that contributions and donor identities are facts that must be truthfully stated under oath. The complaint further argues that Marcoleta "knew the legal consequences of submitting a false sworn statement, but he nonetheless elected to misrepresent his contributions to shield his donors from being identified." The complainants also noted that Marcoleta's SOCE, filed on June 10, had no reported issues regarding its form or notarization, indicating it was properly executed under Comelec requirements. "His professional background forecloses any claim of confusion or inadvertence." The complaint also cited Section 10 of the Omnibus Election Code, which mandates that candidates and party treasurers file a full, true, and itemized statement of all contributions and expenditures before the election and a supplemental statement within 30 days afterward. "Respondent was fully aware of the materiality of these disclosures. Accordingly, the elements of perjury are satisfied," the complaint added.
