The Sandiganbayan has issued a Precautionary Hold Departure Order (PHDO) against former ACT-CIS Party-List Representative Edvic Yap and Benguet Lone District Representative Eric Yap, who are accused of involvement in anomalous flood control projects.
The order ensures that the Yap brothers will be monitored at ports and airports, with any attempts to leave the Philippines promptly reported to law enforcement.
“The Sandiganbayan has granted our request for a PHDO against Edvic and Eric Yap,” Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano announced on Tuesday, March 3.
He explained that a PHDO is typically requested during the preliminary investigation phase to prevent respondents, deemed flight risks, from evading jurisdiction.
The anti-graft court’s Second Division issued a resolution on March 3, 2026, approving the ex-parte application filed by the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Ombudsman. The case involves alleged graft and malversation of public funds tied to flood control projects in La Union.
The complaint, filed by Public Works Secretary Vince Dizon on October 23, 2025, also implicated 13 officials and employees of the DPWH La Union 2nd District Engineering Office and Silverwolves Construction Corporation.
Two flood control projects, costing ₱89,737,280.52 and ₱89,737,362.73, were awarded to Silverwolves and declared completed and fully paid. However, ocular inspections reportedly revealed otherwise.
A preliminary financial probe by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) confirmed the Yap brothers’ beneficial ownership and financial interest in Silverwolves during the relevant period.
Investigators found that Silverwolves received inter-account transfers amounting to ₱16.6 billion from the DPWH between 2022 and 2025—far exceeding the total value of awarded projects.
In its resolution, the Sandiganbayan stressed: “In weighing the respondents’ right to travel against the State’s compelling interest in preserving the integrity of criminal proceedings involving substantial public funds, the balance tilts in favor of the latter.”
The court added: “Public office is a public trust, and allegations of malversation and graft strike at the very heart of public accountability. The Court cannot close its eyes to the real and practical possibility that its jurisdiction may be rendered illusory if preventive measures are not seasonably adopted.”