A heated exchange arose between Senator Rodante Marcoleta and Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla over a restitution issue during the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing on Tuesday, September 23.
Marcoleta firmly stated that restitution is not a legal requisite for those seeking admission into the Witness Protection Program (WPP), especially while they are still undergoing prosecution.
“We somehow settle the issue that restitution is not a requisite for an applicant to the WPP,” Marcoleta said, implying that such a requirement cannot be imposed arbitrarily during the early stages of application.
Remulla acknowledged that restitution is not mandated by law, but emphasized that moral obligations should also be considered. “It’s not in the law, but sakin po kasi, hindi lang po batas ang nagdi-dictate nito. It’s also what is morally right, what is expected of us. ‘Yan po kasi kahit hindi nilagay sa batas, mga given po ‘yan sa ating lipunan,” Remulla argued, stressing that societal norms and ethical considerations should guide such decisions.
While the Justice Secretary agreed that restitution could be considered depending on the context of a case, he maintained that it is not part of the official WPP admission process.
Marcoleta asserted that there is no law requiring applicants of the WPP to return any ill-gotten funds, especially while the cases are still undergoing prosecution.
However, Remulla countered that legal provisions should not be the sole basis in such matters. According to him, the return of ill-gotten wealth remains necessary as an act of good faith, emphasizing that it is considered the “morally right” thing to do.
The senator then pressed Remulla to confirm the procedural facts: “Mr. Secretary, I am still in the stage where a particular applicant wishes to apply under that program, and there is a process. In the process, restitution is not one of the requisites. ”
Marcoleta argued that under the law, civil liability, and therefore restitution, only comes after the findings, not during the application stage. He warned Remulla not to alter the legal requisites.
“Opo, pero in terms of this case being a financial crime, sir. This is a crime against the financial status of the Filipino people of the Philippine Republic. I think that it is just right,” Remulla said.
“Mr. Secretary, are you amending the provision of the law?” Marcoleta asked, to which Remulla answered, “No, sir. But that is how we run the Witness Protection Program.”
The debate intensified as they pointed fingers over who was merely expressing opinion, highlighting the tension between legal procedures and moral considerations in the treatment of witnesses involved in corruption cases regarding the flood control scam.
“I am not expressing an opinion here. I am articulating the provision of law. You do not change the provision of law, Mr. Secretary,” Marcoleta firmly stated.
Moreover, several senators, including Kiko Pangilinan and Erwin Tulfo, expressed agreement to Remulla’s stance, with Tulfo stating, “Sometimes, we have to bend the law.”
