Restitution can be condition for witness protection, says law dean

By Gerome Dalipe IV

Former law dean Mel Sta. Maria backed Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, saying restitution—or returning ill-gotten funds—can and should be required before suspects are admitted to the Witness Protection Program in the flood control program probe.

In a Facebook post, Sta. Maria cited Section 5 of Republic Act 6981, or the Witness Protection Law, which requires a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) outlining a witness’s responsibilities, including compliance with legal obligations and civil judgments.

“Pwede gawin condition na bago mabigyan ng witness protection… return muna ang mga nakaw-yaman,” he wrote, adding that the MOA can mandate applicants to return money obtained “unjustifiably and unconscionably” as a precondition for protection.

Sta. Maria told reporters that restitution is not explicitly required under the law but can be inserted into the MOA, making it a legal rather than purely moral obligation.

“Tama si Justice Secretary Remulla. Hindi lang moral obligation, legal obligation pa. Malinaw,” he said.

He explained that alleged gains from the flood control projects amount to unjust enrichment, which falls under obligations enforceable under existing law, including as terms of witness protection.

Under RA 6981, lawmakers can recommend a witness for protection during a legislative inquiry if the testimony is deemed urgently needed, but only with the witness’s consent and approval from the Senate president or House speaker.

Before protection is granted, the law requires the witness to sign an agreement outlining his duties, including a mandatory provision to “comply with legal obligations and civil judgments against him.”