“Catanduanes Tonto” host Atty. Oliver T. Rodulfo has filed graft charges before the Ombudsman against Congressman Eulogio R. Rodriguez, his wife Merlinda, and their three daughters over their alleged involvement in four (4) flood control projects in Manila and Parañaque cities in 2024.
The complaint-affidavit was filed by the former DPWH regional legal officer last June 4, 2026 against the politically powerful couple and their three daughters Leah Monica, Eula Merl and Chaselle Angela for violation of Section 14, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Sec 3(h) and Section 8 of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Atty. Rodulfo stated in the complaint that the filing of the case is due to the congressman’s connection with E.R. Rodriguez Construction Corporation, which bears his initials and the Board of Directors of which is composed of his wife Merlinda as president, Leah Monica as corporate secretary, Eula Merl as treasurer, and Chaselle Angela as director as indicated in the corporation’s General Information Sheet (GIS).
“While it is not inherently improper for public officials or their families to operate or seek employment opportunities, what makes this matter with the Respondent particularly concerning is the apparent conflict of interest arising from the corporation’s participation in government contracts,” the complainant stressed.
He said that the conflict of interest arose when E.R. Rodriguez Construction Corporation entered into construction contracts with the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), particularly for flood control and flood mitigation projects as shown by four Contract Agreements submitted as evidence.
These projects were: the Construction of Slope Protection Structure Along Riverside, Baseco Compound, Port Area, Manila with Contract ID 24OH0071 and contract cost of P93,635,818.73; Construction of Flood Mitigation Structure along various creeks and tributaries of Paranaque River (District I) with Contract ID 24OC0116 and contract cost of P96,033,426.99; Construction of Flood Mitigation Structure along Marulas creek in Paranaque City, with Contract ID 24OC0117 and contract cost of P95,051,000.00; and Construction of Flood Mitigation Structure along Villanueva creek in Paranaque City, with Contract ID 24OC0118 and contract cost of P76,038,240.26.
All four contracts were entered into by E.R. Rodriguez Construction Corporation were executed in the year 2024 during which time the Respondent Congressman was actively holding public office, Rodulfo pointed out.
The acts of the congressman, he said, constitute a clear transgression of Section 14, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which states that no senator or member of the House of Representati9ves “shall be interested financially, directly or indirectly, in any contract with or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office.”
Rodulfo also asked the Ombudsman to find the congressman in violation of Section 3(h) of RA 3019 for “directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.”
He explained that the congressman, as a public office, has his immediate family running E.R. Rodriguez Construction, a corporation that enters into contracts with the DPWH.
“It is respectfully submitted that this arrangement creates a similar conflict of interest prohibited under Section 14, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3(h) of RA 3019, as he stands to benefit, directly or indirectly, from the awarding of government projects,” the lawyer emphasized.
He cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in People v. Moreno, which affirmed that a public officer may be held liable for having a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in a business, even if such interest is held through a family member.
The prohibition under Section 3(h) of RA 3019 does not require the public officer himself to be the registered owner of the business enterprise involved, Rodulfo said, noting that the DPWH contracts were awarded to E.R. Rodriguez Construction Corporation, a business operated entirely by the respondent’s wife and children, while the congressman actively held office.
The respondent congressman cannot feign ignorance or lack of interest in the affairs of E.R. Rodriguez Construction Corporation, as the corporation itself unmistakably bears his very name and initials, and its corporate leadership is composed entirely of his immediate family members,” he told the Ombudsman.
Rodulfo also quotes provisions of the New Civil Code on all property acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted, or registered in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is proven.
“In the same vein, the participation of the respondent’s children in E.R. Rodriguez Construction Corporation may also be taken into scrutiny, for they may have either been puppets of the respondent, or worse, are in actual connivance with their father to circumvent the Constitutional prohibition on public officers to enter into public contracts,” he stated.
The congressman’s wife and children are also impleaded for violation of Section 4 of RA 3019, which provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person having family or close personal relation with any public official to capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family of close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or pecuniary advantage from any other person having some business, transaction, application, interest or contract with the government to which such public official has to intervene,”
Atty. Rodulfo also underscored that Contracts 24OC0116 and 24OC0117 and 24OC0118 between the DPWH and E.R. Rodriguez Construction Corporation appear to be by-products of the splitting of government contracts, a practice prohibited by Section 39 of RA 12009 or the New Government Procurement Act.
Likewise, he mentioned the striking similarities in the nature of the three projects, their geographic proximity, and identical objectives as well as the fact that they were all awarded within the same period and involved nearly identical contract amounts.
“More importantly, the possibility that multiple contracts were segmented and subsequently awarded to the same contractor, which in this case is a corporation deeply associated with a sitting Member of Congress, further heightens the appearance of irregularity,” Rodulfo stated as he sought a thorough and impartial investigation of the complaint by the Ombudsman.