Now that the Supreme Court has accepted Mr. Barry Tayam’s petition for review of the ruling of the COMELEC on Senator Francis Escudero’s case, despite the absence of a motion for reconsideration (MR), I’m quite elated. Ordinarily, an MR before COMELEC is a condition precedent. Skipping it is usually fatal because it deprives the agency of a chance to correct itself.

So, when the Court takes cognizance despite no MR, it is doing something deliberate. It signals that the Court may be seeing an issue of transcendental importance.

Some cases test the law. And then some cases test whether the law still means anything at all. The controversy now before the Supreme Court is unmistakably the latter.

At issue is a ₱30 million campaign donation given to Senator Francis Escudero by Mr. Lawrence Lubiano, who owns 99.33% of Centerways Construction and Development, Inc., a government contractor. The Commission on Elections cleared the transaction, reasoning that the donation was made in the donor’s personal capacity, rather than by the corporation.

On paper, it is a tidy explanation. In reality, it is a dangerous loophole.

A Fiction Too Convenient

The law prohibits government contractors from making campaign contributions. The reason is obvious: contractors depend on the State, and the State controls contracts, payments, and regulatory approvals. Political donations from such actors carry an inherent risk of influence.

The COMELEC’s ruling rests on a familiar legal doctrine: that a corporation is separate from its shareholders. But this case stretches that doctrine to the breaking point.

When a donor exercises overwhelming control over a contractor, the distinction between “personal” and “corporate” action becomes less a legal reality and more a convenient label. If this reasoning stands, then the prohibition becomes meaningless. Every contractor needs only to route political donations through its controlling owner, and the law is effortlessly sidestepped.

The Pattern We Are Asked to Ignore

The controversy does not exist in a vacuum.

In an interview by Christian Esguerra of Facts First, Atty. Eldridge Marvin Aceron, who filed an ethics complaint against Senator Escudero, pointedly raised what he views as the core concern: “But the point is you cannot ignore the fact, eh, ₱16 billion in contracts after the donation.”

That statement is, at this stage, an allegation, not a judicial finding. It remains to be proven, tested, or disproven in the proper forum. But that is precisely the point.

The law was crafted not only to punish proven corruption, but to prevent situations where influence becomes indistinguishable from coincidence. It exists to draw a line before the need to prove wrongdoing arises.

When large political donations from contractor-linked individuals are followed by large public contracts, even if only alleged, the concern is no longer abstract. It becomes systemic.

The Supreme Court’s Responsibility

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that goes beyond technical interpretation. It can affirm COMELEC and say: The law does not explicitly prohibit this. Congress must fix it.

Or, it can recognize a deeper principle: That what the law forbids cannot be accomplished indirectly through convenient labeling. This is not judicial overreach. It is a faithful interpretation.

Courts are not mere readers of text. They are guardians of purpose.

And the purpose here is unmistakable: to prevent government contractors from gaining political leverage through campaign funding.

A Doctrine Whose Time Has Come

This case presents the Court with an opportunity, indeed, an obligation, to articulate a clear rule: When an individual exercises controlling ownership over a government contractor, his political contributions cannot be treated as purely personal if doing so would undermine statutory prohibitions.

Such a doctrine does not expand the law. It preserves it. Without it, the prohibition becomes a formality, observed in paperwork, defeated in practice.

If the Court Does Nothing

If the ruling is affirmed, the consequences will be immediate: The prohibition on contractor donations becomes functionally hollow. Political financing shifts to proxy donations through controlling individuals. Public confidence in elections and procurement further erodes.

This is not speculation. It is the logical outcome of a rule that values form over substance.

Draw the Line Where It Matters

At its core, this case asks a simple question: Will the law be interpreted in a way that can be easily bypassed, or in a way that preserves its purpose?

The Court must choose substance over form. Reality over fiction. Integrity over convenience.

Because in a system where the law can be technically obeyed while practically defeated, the danger is not open illegality. It is a perfectly legal circumvention.

And that is far harder to detect, and far more damaging to democracy.

About the author

RAUL F. BORJAL, known as “Rolly” to his family and friends, was born in Naga City, Camarines Sur, and now resides in Parañaque City, Metro Manila. An alumnus of both Ateneo de Naga University and Ateneo de Manila University, he held senior executive roles in several domestic and multinational corporations, culminating in his retirement as Vice President and Corporate Secretary of a Filipino-owned group of companies.

He is married to the former Wenifreda D. Parma, a cum laude graduate of Ateneo de Naga University, and together they have four children. Rolly is also a co-founder and a member of the editorial board of Dateline Ibalon.