For commuters from Slum Improvement and Resettlement Phase 1, or SIR, the small motorized banca are more than fishing boats. They are a daily shortcut to Bangkaan, where roads are easier to access and a jeepney ride can often be avoided.

The trip takes only a few minutes, but for many passengers it saves time, money and frustration.

SIR has three boat houses — Espaldon VII, Rocel Cas 2 and RCFM 2 — serving commuters whose fares range from P3 to P6. Some fares have gone up by P1 or P2 because of rising fuel prices, boat personnel said.

Rosendo, 61, has been operating boats for 20 years. His shift starts at 4 a.m. and ends at 2 p.m. But earnings can be unpredictable. Competition among operators splits the passenger load, and some trips leave him with only a few riders. On a good day, he earns P400 to P500.

On the other side of Bolton Bridge, residents of Gravahan, Purok 2, Matina, also rely on boats to cross the river directly to Bankerohan Public Market.

Unlike in SIR, the Gravahan route has only one boat, M/B Annarie. Located near Bankerohan and Matina, it often carries a near-full load of passengers on nearly every trip. Driver Marlon earns about P600 a day, depending on foot traffic.

For passengers, the appeal is simple: the boat is faster, cheaper and more convenient than sitting in traffic in a jeepney or tricycle.

“Pagabot nimo sa Bankerohan palengke puwede naka mu-shortcut padulong diri, then, pagtabok pud nimo diri sa Gravahan duol rapud ang gate sa UM (University of Mindanao). Maong mas convenient jud,” said Jade, 21, a college student, explaining the boat offers a shortcut from Bankerohan to Gravahan, where the University of Mindanao gate is nearby.

The river route is not always available. Heavy rain and typhoons can force operations to stop when water levels rise. In those cases, the city coast guard radios boat drivers to suspend trips, and passengers return to land commuting.

As Davao continues to urbanize, jeepneys, taxis and free buses remain the city’s main public transport options. But with congestion worsening, river crossings like these offer a quieter, faster alternative for residents trying to get where they need to go. – Dawn Maricar Bojos/ UP Mindanao Intern

John Rose Vendiola, a resident of Barangay Calabanit said she was at school when the quake struck. June 8 was the opening of classes in all public schools in the Philippines. 

“We were at school when it happened. We remained at the school for a long time due to continuous aftershocks. I was physically trembling, and we were waiting for a rescue team to arrive, but no assistance came. We just had to look out for ourselves until we managed to get home,” Vendiola told Davao Today on June 24.

She said earthquake drills are conducted in schools, but these are limited to students. Adults, she added, mostly rely on safety tips they see on social media, such as the drop-and-cover technique and other protective measures.

Patrick Yap, officer in charge of the municipal administrator’s office, said the local government does not conduct warning drills, but actual emergencies are different from training exercises. 

“We do give warnings and conduct drills, but the drill they talk about, all cover and that, it’s really not like that. Even then, during the earthquake at the flag ceremony, we all really fell to the ground,” he said. 

Yap said the experience showed how quickly a real earthquake can overwhelm even prepared communities. 

Hamsiya Dioda, a resident of Barangay Burias, said schools conduct earthquake drills to students but barangay-level preparedness remains limited. 

“They really teach them earthquake drills there at school. But here in the barangay, they just sound the alarm. The barangay captain just presses the buzzer whenever something like this happens,” Dioda said. 

Cesar Ian Manico, information officer II of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD XII) said the agency had a standing fund of P3 million for emergencies in Region XII, but it was quickly exhausted after the Glan earthquake and other requests for assistance. 

He said the fund was intended for the entire region. As of June 24, 2026, the agency had spent more than P56 million for the affected areas. – Aisanie Ibrahim/Mindanao State University-Marawi (davaotoday.com)

The quake left more than collapsed roofs and cracked walls. For many residents, especially those living in remote, landslide-prone communities, it raised a more difficult question: Can they rebuild?

Days after the disaster, families whose homes were severely damaged continue to seek assistance, for food and temporary shelter — and for construction materials and cash to rebuild. For some, rebuilding may not be an option if their communities are declared unsafe.

Homes unsafe after quake

Maria Villamor, 24, no longer sleeps inside the house she spent years calling home.

The quake left their house in Barangay Tapon leaning to one side. Although parts of the structure remain standing, Maria said it is no longer safe.

Instead of returning, the family stays in temporary shelters beside the highway while authorities determine whether it is safe to go back.

“Ang problema lang gyud ang among kapuy-an. Wala na Ma’am. Ga bakilid lang jud siya. Dili na jud namo siya maadtuan kay wala mi kabalo basin mauyog napud ug kalit unya mahugmak,” she said. (“Our biggest problem now is our home. It’s gone, Ma’am. It’s already leaning badly. We can’t go there anymore because we don’t know if it might suddenly shake again and collapse.”)

Like many in the barangay, Maria and her family spend their days outside their damaged house, fearing another strong tremor could trigger its collapse. Several neighbors have stopped sleeping inside houses initially considered as repairable because they no longer trust the weakened walls. 

Assessment process

Cesar Ian Manico, information officer II of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) Region 12, said initial assessments begin at the barangay level, particularly in areas where government responders could not immediately enter because roads remained impassable.

Once access is possible, DSWD personnel validate reports and classify damaged houses as repairable and unrepairable. 

Those classifications determine not only financial assistance but also whether residents can safely return home, remain in evacuation areas, or require continued temporary shelter. 

Although authorities have not finished assessing many houses, some residents have already returned briefly to bathe, retrieve belongings, cook meals and check on property. For families staying in makeshift tents along the road, the shelters provide safety but offer little privacy and limited access to necessities. 

Rebuilding sites

As residents wait for assessment results, some communities are taking matters into their own hands.

In Purok Islam, where there is no permanent evacuation center, the residents worked together to establish a shelter on a vacant lot farther from the hillside.

Purok chairwoman Raida Nidal said the initiative was meant to provide a safer place for families from both Purok Islam and nearby Purok Highway while waiting for government decisions.

People want to return home, but they also know that returning too soon could put their families at risk.

Patrick Yap, officer-in-charge of the municipal administrator’s office, said the municipal government wants affected residents to return to normal life as soon as possible. He appealed to donors to prioritize construction materials that families can use once rebuilding begins.

But, rebuilding will depend on hazard assessments conducted by technical agencies. The Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHILVOCS) has advised local governments that if relocation becomes necessary, affected families should not be moved to areas adjacent to existing danger zones, Yap said. 

Relocating communities beside unstable slopes or hazard-prone areas would only expose them to the same risks in future disasters.

Finding relocation areas remains one of the municipality’s biggest challenges, he said. The local government has purchased relocation sites in several barangays, but many areas are still partially developed; roads and other infrastructure still need completion. The municipality is exploring additional land to accommodate residents who may be prohibited from rebuilding inside identified danger zones. 

Danger zones reshape recovery

The quake did more than destroy houses. It reshaped how the entire communities are viewed. 

Several of the hardest-hit barangays are in mountainous areas where landslides blocked roads in the quake’s aftermath, delaying relief operations and making it difficult for responders to reach isolated residents. These same communities now face closer evaluation as authorities determine whether they remain suitable for settlement.

Yap acknowledged that some barangays still lack permanent evacuation centers, forcing residents to establish temporary shelters themselves while waiting for government assistance. Despite logistical challenges, the municipality is coordinating with barangay officials to monitor conditions and ensure isolated communities receive help.

Uncertain recovery

For many survivors, uncertainty extends beyond where they will rebuild. It includes how they will recover.

Josephine Vendiola, 60, who is staying at the municipal tent city in Poblacion, said the quake also damaged the small beauty salon that provides her family’s main income. Although the building was classified as repairable, it sustained large foundation cracks and would require major repairs. She hopes authorities can provide materials to restore the business and help her family recover financially.

For Mahadzieh Tel, 55, of Barangay Burias, returning home is even more uncertain. Her house was classified unrepairable after large cracks spread across the floor while the walls began separating from the foundation. She said the house no longer feels safe to live in. If rebuilding elsewhere is not immediately possible, she and her husband hope to salvage usable materials while waiting for authorities to determine whether the property can be occupied.

“Ako Ma’am mahadlok na gyud ko pero akong bana iya ra ning ibilin ning uban kay dili na mani pwede, ang uban kay na-separate naman,” Mahadzieh said. (“I’m really scared now, Ma’am, but my husband said we should just leave the rest here because this is no longer usable; some parts have already separated.”)

Sahara Ambiran, 36, carries another burden beyond damaged walls. During the earthquake, she and her family narrowly escaped collapsing concrete inside their home. Although they qualified for cash assistance after their house was assessed as beyond repair, she said the amount would not be enough to build another home. Today, they sleep on the terrace of a relative’s house because they remain too afraid to return. 

For Sahara and hundreds of other survivors in Glan, rebuilding is no longer simply about putting up new walls. It is about deciding whether the place they once called home is still safe to return to. Ayannah Tomandao/University of the Philippines- Mindanao Intern

Welcome to a space dedicated to clear truths, community accountability, and shared advocacy. Let’s take the conversation forward.

The Office of the Ombudsman’s announcement that it is poised to file a non-bailable plunder case against Senator Rodante Marcoleta before the Sandiganbayan presents a legally significant and potentially historic test of Philippine anti-graft jurisprudence.  

More than a political controversy, the case sits at the intersection of anti-corruption law and election law, raising a question that Philippine courts have yet to answer directly: Can a public officer be prosecuted for plunder when the alleged ill-gotten wealth consists entirely of private funds rather than public money? 

Stripped of both the prosecution’s political narrative and the defense’s claim that the case amounts to “punishing dissent,” the issue deserves to be examined on its legal merits. 

Can private funds constitute plunder? 

The centerpiece of Senator Marcoleta’s defense is that the 75 million in question cannot constitute “ill-gotten wealth” under the Anti-Plunder Act (Republic Act No. 7080) because the money allegedly came from private campaign donors rather than from government coffers or a raid on the public treasury. 

At first glance, the argument appears persuasive. However, a closer reading of the statute reveals a more complicated picture. 

Section 1(d)(2) of R.A. No. 7080 defines “ill-gotten wealth” to include assets acquired through a series or combination of overt criminal acts, including: 

“By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office held.” 

The statutory language is notably broad. Congress did not limit “ill-gotten wealth” to public funds. Instead, it expressly includes “gifts,” “kickbacks” and other pecuniary benefits received from “any person and/or entity” by reason of public office. 

From a textual standpoint, the law therefore does not necessarily require the prosecution to prove that government funds were stolen. If a public official allegedly amassed at least 50 million from private persons by reason of holding public office through a series of predicate offenses, the Anti-Plunder Act may, at least theoretically, apply. 

In this context, offenses such as Indirect Bribery under Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code and violations of Presidential Decree No. 46—which prohibits public officials from receiving gifts or valuable consideration from private persons because of their office—could potentially serve as the predicate acts required under the Anti-Plunder Act if their cumulative value reaches the statutory threshold. 

Marked, collected: Admissions that shape the case 

What makes this prosecution particularly unusual is that much of its factual foundation appears to arise from Senator Marcoleta’s own sworn admissions rather than from disputed documentary evidence. 

According to the Ombudsman’s allegations and the Senator’s counter-affidavit: 

• He admitted receiving a total of 75 million in three separate transactions in January 2025—30 million from Mike Defensor, 25 million from Aristotle Viray, and 20 million from Joseph Espiritu. If proven unlawful, the admitted amount exceeds the 50 million threshold required under the Anti-Plunder Act. 

• He likewise acknowledged that the funds were not reflected in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) as of June 30, 2025, nor reported in his Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) filed before the Commission on Elections (Comelec). 

The defense maintains that the money had already been spent on election-related activities and therefore no longer constituted an asset required to be declared in the SALN. 

Whether that explanation is legally sufficient remains a question for trial. 

The prosecution, however, is expected to argue that the alleged illegality attached at the moment the funds were accepted, assuming they were received by reason of public office and in violation of anti-graft laws. It may further contend that the failure to disclose the funds in the SOCE deprived the transactions of the transparency expected of lawful campaign contributions, thereby strengthening the inference that the money constituted concealed or improperly acquired funds rather than legitimate political donations. 

The collision between election law and anti-graft law 

The case ultimately turns on the interaction between two distinct legal regimes. 

The defense relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Peñera v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 181613 (November 25, 2009).  

Under the Peñera doctrine, an individual does not become a “candidate” for purposes of election offenses until the official campaign period begins. Because the alleged donations were received in January 2025, months before the official campaign period for the May 2025 elections, Senator Marcoleta argues that the transactions were merely lawful pre-campaign political donations beyond the reach of election law. 

The Ombudsman, however, appears to rely on a different legal principle altogether. 

Whatever protection the Peñera doctrine provides against election offenses, it does not exempt incumbent public officials from compliance with anti-corruption statutes.  

At the time the funds were allegedly received, Senator Marcoleta was serving as a Member of the House of Representatives representing the SAGIP Party-list. As a sitting public officer, he remained subject to Republic Act No. 3019, Presidential Decree No. 46, the Revised Penal Code, and the Anti-Plunder Act regardless of whether the election campaign had officially begun. 

In other words, election law determines when campaign-related conduct may become punishable. Anti-graft laws regulate the conduct of public officials every day they hold office. 

A novel but legally plausible theory 

Viewed strictly from a legal perspective, the Ombudsman appears to have articulated a prima facie theory sufficient to warrant judicial examination. 

The prosecution need not necessarily prove that public funds were diverted. Its theory instead rests on the allegation that an incumbent public official unlawfully accumulated more than ?50 million in private funds by reason of his office through a series of predicate offenses recognized under existing law. 

Whether that theory ultimately satisfies the demanding evidentiary requirements of a plunder conviction remains for the Sandiganbayan to determine. 

What is beyond dispute, however, is that the case ventures into largely untested legal territory. Philippine courts have seldom confronted a plunder prosecution anchored primarily on private campaign contributions rather than on the traditional allegation of looting the public treasury. 

A defining test of public accountability 

Ultimately, the controversy reaches beyond one senator or one election cycle. It tests a constitutional principle that has long defined Philippine public service: Public office is a public trust. 

The Sandiganbayan’s eventual ruling could establish an important precedent clarifying where legitimate political fundraising ends and criminal accumulation of wealth begins when the recipient is an incumbent public official. 

If the Sandiganbayan conclude that public officials may lawfully receive millions of pesos in undisclosed private funds simply by characterizing them as “pre-campaign donations,” the decision could expose a significant gap in the country’s anti-corruption framework; it  may be used as a blueprint for legalized bribery.  

Conversely, if the courts reject that argument, the ruling may reinforce the principle that anti-graft laws apply irrespective of the election calendar and regardless of whether the money originated from public or private sources. 

Either outcome will shape future prosecutions, campaign finance practices and the scope of public accountability. 

The facts alleged by the prosecution will still have to be proven in court, and Senator Marcoleta remains entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence. Yet the legal questions presented are too important to dismiss as mere political theater. They deserve careful judicial scrutiny. 

The rule of law and justice demands nothing less. Whether the accused is a powerful legislator or an ordinary public servant, accountability cannot depend on political influence or private wealth. It must depend on what the law and justice require and what the evidence ultimately proves. (davaotoday.com)

Holding placards with messages against “selective justice” and alleged corruption, rally participants said the gathering was intended to promote transparency in government and encourage Filipinos to demand accountability from public officials.

Rodolfo, 65, an INC member who joined the rally, said he participated because he believes government officials should be transparent in their actions.

“Dahil sa mga nangyayaring malalang korupsyon, ang gusto lang naman namin (INC) ay accountability at transparency,” he said. (“Because of the serious corruption that is happening, what we want as the INC is accountability and transparency.”)

Eds, 24, who also joined the rally, said she participated because she believes government officials should uphold transparency and accountability.

“Transparency at accountability, hinahangad namin na maging makatarungan ang ginagawa ng gobyerno,” she said. (“We are seeking transparency and accountability so that the government’s actions will be fair.”)

She added that the gathering was not intended to attack any individual but to encourage responsible governance.

‘Not accountability call’

Human rights lawyer Karlos Isagani Zarate acknowledged that every Filipino has the constitutional right to peacefully assemble and air grievances, but questioned the purpose of the gathering.

“Freedom of expression is guaranteed… We respect their right to express their opinion and grievances,” Zarate said.

However, he argued that the demonstration was “not actually for accountability and good governance because they are protecting one person who is accused of plunder.”

Zarate was referring to Senator Rodolfo “Rodante” Marcoleta, who is facing a plunder complaint. Marcoleta has denied any wrongdoing.

He also rejected claims of “selective justice,” saying accountability should apply to all public officials regardless of political affiliation.

“Our call is not selective justice. Everyone should be held accountable. Whether you are a Duterte, a Marcos, or any other public official, they should be investigated if there is basis,” he said.

Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla is expected to pursue the plunder case against Marcoleta, and said the public should closely monitor the proceedings while allowing the justice system to take its course.

The Quezon City government revoked its third rally protest and will move to Liwasang Bonifacio on July 2. (davaotoday.com)