senseneres: CAN THE CONSPIRACY THEORY APPLY TO CORRUPTION CASES?

CAN THE CONSPIRACY THEORY APPLY TO CORRUPTION CASES?

Let me begin by saying this: I am not a lawyer. I write not with legal training, but with common sense—something every citizen is entitled to use. If what I say sounds too simplistic, that’s because I am a simple man trying to understand a complicated system that seems designed to make corruption look like an art form.

That said, I believe the conspiracy theory—at least in its legal sense—can and does apply to corruption cases. It is the principle that allows prosecutors to go after not just one thief, but an entire network of thieves working together.

So, who are these conspirators?

Some say the real masterminds are those inside the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) who have “mastered” the system and know exactly how to bring out the money. But first, they need access to the source of the funds. And where is that? Congress, of course.

It begins with appropriations—officially labeled as infrastructure funds, often for flood control or local projects. When that doesn’t work, there are insertions—those mysterious add-ons to the national budget that appear after the hearings are done.

Once that money is earmarked, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) enters the picture. Somehow, some way, someone there has to release the funds. Then come the Terms of Reference (TOR), the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), and the Notice to Proceed (NTP). Each step requires signatures—each signature, a potential collaborator.

From the Head of the Procuring Entity (HOPE) who signs off, to the User Acceptance Test (UAT) committee that certifies the completion of projects, to the accountants who prepare the vouchers, all the way to the banks that clear suspicious transactions—somebody, somewhere, must have looked the other way.

If this sounds like a conspiracy theory, that’s because it is—but one that’s entirely plausible.

What the Law Says

In Philippine law, conspiracy means two or more persons agreeing to commit a crime and taking steps to execute it. There need not be a written agreement—just evidence of coordinated actions toward an illegal goal.

In corruption cases, that can mean:

Officials and contractors colluding to rig bids or inflate costs.
Coordinated kickback arrangements.
Ghost projects and fabricated payrolls.

When proven, all conspirators are equally liable, even if only one signed the check or issued the approval. The Supreme Court has long ruled that active cooperation—not mere presence—constitutes conspiracy.

Why This Matters

Applying conspiracy theory to corruption is not just legal jargon—it's a justice strategy. It helps dismantle entire networks instead of stopping at small fish.

Think about the ongoing flood control scam, now under investigation. As of late 2025, at least 25 individuals, including DPWH engineers and private contractors, face non-bailable charges for graft, corruption, and malversation. Investigators say syndicates siphoned off as much as 30% of project funds, with ghost projects uncovered in Bulacan and other provinces.

DPWH Secretary Vince Dizon called it a “massive theft of people’s money,” and he’s right. Documents were falsified, signatures forged, and funds released for projects that never existed. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Ombudsman are now reviewing whistleblower testimonies to prove a coordinated conspiracy—from lawmakers who initiated funding, to regional officers who processed papers, down to private contractors who “executed” nothing.

Collusion and Conspiracy—Two Faces of the Same Crime

In plain language, collusion is how conspiracy works. Collusion means secret cooperation for fraud or deceit; conspiracy means criminal cooperation to commit a crime. In corruption cases, they often walk hand in hand.

When a contractor and a public official agree to rig a bid, that’s collusion. When they act together to make it happen, that’s conspiracy. The courts can infer conspiracy from patterns of coordinated approvals, synchronized signatures, or shared benefits—even without direct evidence of an agreement.

Why It’s So Hard to Prosecute

Proving conspiracy is tricky. Prosecutors must show a “meeting of the minds” and coordinated acts—not just parallel misconduct. As Prosecutor General Benedicto Malcontento noted, more affidavits and clearer testimonies are needed to build strong conspiracy cases. Politics also complicates matters, since some accused are high-ranking officials.

Still, when proven, conspiracy charges are powerful. They break the “silo defense” (“I was only following orders”) and hold everyone accountable for the collective theft.

A Citizen’s View

To my simple mind, corruption in the Philippines rarely happens alone. It thrives in company—in boardrooms, corridors, and backrooms where conspirators meet over coffee and contracts. That’s why I say yes: the conspiracy theory applies, and it should be used aggressively.

We must stop treating corruption as isolated acts of greed. It is organized crime in barong Tagalog—executed through paperwork, not pistols.

Perhaps the real challenge is not in defining conspiracy, but in proving the courage to confront it.

So here’s my question: if conspiracy exists in theory, can we make it work in court? Because until we do, the conspirators will keep laughing all the way to the bank—ours, not theirs.

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/06-12-2026