The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) has sought to overturn the Sandiganbayan’s grant of bail to former senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr., urging the anti-graft court to partially reconsider its July 31 resolution and deny his petition for provisional liberty.

On July 31, the Sandiganbayan Third Division granted bail to Revilla in his pending malversation case over the alleged anomalous ₱92.8-million flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan. The resolution granting bail, penned by Associate Justice Fritz Bryn Anthony M. Delos Santos and joined by Associate Justice Ronald B. Moreno, was opposed by Third Division Chairperson Associate Justice Karl B. Miranda.

“[I]t is respectfully prayed that the Resolution dated 31 July 2026 be PARTIALLY RECONSIDERED insofar as it granted the Petition for Bail filed by accused Ramon “Bong” Bautista Revilla, Jr., and a new one be rendered DENYING the said Petition,” the 15-page motion for reconsideration stated.

According to the motion, the case goes beyond the alleged wastage of public funds, as it also concerns the alleged breach of public trust committed by Revilla and his co-accused in their capacities as government officials.

“Their greed undermined their ability to be real agents of the public whom they have sworn to serve. Instead of nurturing their knowledge and skills as public servants, they beefed up their experience in graft and corruption,” it read.

“Indeed, to enrich themselves at the expense of public service is sheer moral callousness. While it is an evil that cannot be easily discovered, it cannot be hidden nor go unpunished forever.”

Per the motion, while Revilla may not have personally misappropriated the amount specified in the Information, he allegedly consented to or allowed his co-accused to embezzle the funds.

“Accused Revilla facilitated the inclusion of the subject project in the appropriations bill and the 2025 GAA, and received kickbacks, advance commissions, or ‘commitments’,” it added.

As such, the prosecution argued that the evidence on record established that “substantial public funds were disbursed and paid to SYMS despite the non-implementation of the subject project, the incomplete documentary requirements, and the falsehoods in the documents supporting such disbursement.”

“To be sure, the documents on which the disbursement of funds was based represented that the subject project was implemented and 95.17% accomplished, when in truth and in fact, no such work was actually undertaken,” it went on.

The prosecution maintained that the individual acts of the accused formed part of a deliberate and coordinated course of conduct.

“Each played a specific and indispensable role in the inclusion of the subject project in the 2025 GAA, as well as in the processing, certifying, and approving the payment, thereby enabling the accused to malverse, misappropriate, and embezzle public funds in the amount of ₱76,916,337.42,” it stressed.

The prosecution argued that although Revilla may have remained in the background during the implementation of the project, he nevertheless received the lion’s share of the proceeds.

“By reason of his receipt of hundreds of millions of pesos by way of ‘commitments,’ the contractor retained only a minimal portion and the DPWH B1-DEO officials carried out the process. This disproportionate benefit undoubtedly demonstrates that he was the principal beneficiary of the criminal scheme,” the motion noted.

Likewise, the prosecution said that the scheme was designed to ensure Revilla’s receipt of “commitments” while shielding him from the operational risks borne by the other participants.

“Sadly, to the mind of the majority, this was understood to mean that Revilla was far removed from the entire scheme and served to diminish, rather than establish his participation,” it stated.

The prosecution also alleged that Revilla’s acts in facilitating the inclusion and the eventual funding of the project in the General Appropriations Act or GAA were “done to mask his evil intention.” 

It also claimed that “the totality of the prosecution evidence, taken together, clearly demonstrates that accused Revilla was not just the lead actor, but also the central figure whom the entire chain revolved.”

 The prosecution noted that the evidence on record showed Revilla had already been given an allocation by then-DPWH Secretary Manuel Bonoan, leaving him only to fill it with a list of projects.

“Surely, it was erroneous to isolate his overt acts from the ‘kalakaran’ system in the DPWH. Indeed, there would have been no occasion for his co-accused to dip their hands in the cookie jar containing the public funds involved and to misappropriate the same, were it not for his participation in facilitating and ensuring that the subject project be allocated with a budget in the GAA, of course, in exchange for his receipt of ‘commitments.’”