Remulla behauptet, er habe die Marcoleta-Sonde nicht initiiert.

Ombudsman Jesus Crispin "Boying" Remulla has clarified that he did not personally order the investigation into Senator Rodante Marcoleta, despite recent allegations that led to a significant public demonstration. Following the announcement that a plunder case would be filed against Marcoleta, members of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) gathered along Edsa to show support for the senator. During a public speaking event, Remulla emphasized that the initiative for the probe originated from within the Office of the Ombudsman, stating that the evidence presented itself naturally. He expressed concern over the perception that Marcoleta was being targeted specifically, noting that the INC was behind the rally based on their belief that the senator was being singled out.

Remulla elaborated on the Ombudsman's authority to investigate cases independently, known as "motu proprio," meaning investigations can commence without formal complaints. However, he reiterated that he had not directed anyone to pursue the investigation against Marcoleta. Instead, he indicated that a particular team within the Office of the Ombudsman had taken the lead, and once the evidence became apparent, the decision to proceed with legal action was made. According to Remulla, when compelling evidence surfaces, it becomes necessary to present it in court.

The controversy surrounding Marcoleta stems from a P75-million campaign donation he admitted to receiving in January 2025, which he claimed was not declared in his Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (Soce) or his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN). This disclosure came during a televised interview in November 2025, where Marcoleta mentioned that these donations were given anonymously by his "friends." Despite this admission, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) had previously cleared Marcoleta of any election violations related to the undisclosed donations, citing that the funds were received before the official campaign period began.

However, the Ombudsman's field investigation bureau in Luzon recently recommended charges of plunder and indirect bribery against Marcoleta and three individuals associated with the donations—former Representative Mike Defensor and businessmen Joseph Espiritu and Aristotle Viray. In response, Marcoleta stated that the P75 million had already been spent during the campaign, hence its absence from his SALN. He further contended that the donations were made prior to the campaign period, thus falling outside the scope of the regulations enforced by the Comelec.

The situation has sparked discussions regarding potential discrepancies in how similar cases are handled. While Marcoleta claims that the timing of the donations absolves him of wrongdoing, critics argue that the sheer magnitude of the funds raises questions about their legitimacy. The Ombudsman's decision to announce the impending legal actions against Marcoleta has drawn comparisons to previous instances involving high-profile figures, highlighting concerns about the transparency and fairness of the process. As the legal proceedings unfold, the focus remains on whether the evidence will withstand scrutiny and how the broader implications of this case may affect perceptions of justice in the country.