Recent investigative reporting by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) uncovered a pattern worth public scrutiny: significant campaign donations to the Bongbong Marcos 2022 bid came from firms with large government contracts — notably construction companies that later won multi-billion-peso projects.
Examples include Rodulfo Hilot’s Rudhil Construction (donation P20M) and Jonathan Quirante of Quirante Construction (donation P1M), alongside other suppliers listed in official procurement records.
Deafening Silence
This issue raises a straightforward question: if private firms with government contracts donate large sums to a candidate, shouldn’t the Commission on Elections (Comelec) investigate possible violations of election law and conflicts of interest?
Clearly, all fingers point to Comelec, yet amidst all the glaring proof, they are still staying silent.
The law is explicit. Section 95 of the Omnibus Election Code restricts donations from “natural and juridical persons who hold contracts or subcontracts to supply the government.” The purpose is clear — prevent pay-to-play dynamics where public procurement and campaign finance become mutually reinforcing. Yet, despite publicly available procurement records and campaign receipts, we have seen no high-profile Comelec inquiry into these donations.
Why? Several explanations are possible — none reassuring.
Complications Across The Board
First, selective enforcement: electoral bodies may prioritize certain cases while ignoring politically sensitive ones. Second, legal or procedural loopholes: donations routed through intermediaries or made outside the strict “campaign period” may complicate immediate action. Third, institutional caution or political pressure: investigating contractors who later benefit from government awards could be awkward if the donor-recipient relationship is politically connected.
Whatever the reason, the effect is the same: an erosion of public trust. When procurement data (PhilGEPS, notices of award) links contractors to large donations, and when those contractors win sizable contracts soon after, the optics cry out for an independent probe.
The Public Deserves Answers
What should happen next? Comelec must publicly explain its process and, if necessary, open a formal inquiry that cross-references donation records with procurement timelines. The Department of Justice and the Commission on Audit should also cooperate to examine whether any acts violated procurement law or created conflicts of interest. Transparency measures — searchable, linked databases of campaign donations and government contracts — would make such scrutiny routine rather than exceptional.
At stake is simple: if voters cannot be confident that procurement and politics are separate, democracy itself is weakened. Comelec's silence is not neutral — it’s consequential. And the public deserves the answers.
