Lawyer: Remulla ‘correct’ in seeking restitution from Discayas before WPP

By Joseph Bernard A. Marzan

MANILA — A lawyer who co-organized the recent ‘Trillion Peso March’ on Wednesday, September 24, agreed with Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla’s statement seeking a return of allegedly stolen flood control funding from contractors before they could be considered as witnesses for the government.

Lawyer Howard Calleja explained that Remulla can ask for restitution from those who want to be under the state’s Witness Protection Program (WPP).

This is based on Section 5 of Republic Act No. 6981 (Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act), where potential witnesses sign a memorandum of agreement with the DOJ before they are entered into the program.

“When you enter the witness protection [program], you will make an agreement with the DOJ. [Restitution] can be part of the agreement that they will sign. It’s not limited to the qualifications that the law provides; those are minimum qualifications,” Calleja told DZMM on Wednesday.

“There are rules and regulations, commitments, and warranties under the WPP. It can be included that they must return what was stolen from the people,” he added.

Calleja also clarified that undergoing the DOJ’s witness protection program is different from the procedure for an accused in a case to be a state witness.

The discharge of an accused to be a state witness is governed by Sections 17 and 18 of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Under the said rule, an accused may ask the court to be discharged from a criminal case to become a state witness, under certain requisites which they must satisfy, which also acquits them from the case.

“If [the accused] wants to be off the case, they have to ask the court to discharge them as an accused and become a state witness. [The process is] different between the WPP and discharge of a witness [under the Rules of Criminal Procedure],” he explained.

This comes after Remulla told the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing on Tuesday, September 23, that while restitution was not required under the law, it was the “morally right” action and what would be expected of the DOJ.

Senator Rodante Marcoleta replied to Remulla, suggesting that he might be “amending the law,” referring to R.A. No. 6981, and that restitution could only be done after proving criminal liability.

Controversial contractor couple Pacifico and Cezarah Discaya had expressed interest in entering the DOJ’s WPP after being tagged in many flood control projects across the country, including in Iloilo City.

Calleja said that it was “funny” for those involved in the current flood control controversy to attempt to save themselves from criminal liability through the WPP.

He emphasized that the government needs to scrutinize the personalities it considers using as state witnesses in the current controversy.

Both R.A. No. 6981 and Section 17 of Rule 119 require that proposed state witnesses should not appear to be the most guilty before they are accepted as state witnesses.

“What’s funny here is that it will turn out that you can steal a huge [sum of money] and just hide under witness protection, then you can save all [the money] you stole. Then, another funny thing here is that the government will be the one to keep their eye on you. So, you would be stealing [money from the government], and the government would also spend money to watch over you and secure you,” he said.

“That’s why we have to identify who really is necessary [in the case] and who is the least guilty, because if you are the principal, you are part of those who conceptualized it, so how will you be the least guilty? So, this goes to the proper discretion of the courts and the SOJ to know who the least guilty is,” he added.