Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla (left) and Senator Rodante Marcoleta (right) clashed over whether applicants for witness protection must return alleged ill-gotten wealth before being admitted into the program, with Remulla pushing for restitution as proof of good faith and Marcoleta arguing that the law does not require it. (Photos from DOJ and Senate PRIB)
MANILA — A contentious issue surfaced during the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee’s probe into alleged irregularities in flood control projects: should applicants for the government’s Witness Protection Program (WPP) be required to return alleged ill-gotten wealth or public funds before being admitted as state witnesses?
DOJ position: restitution as proof of good faith
Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla told senators that while the law does not explicitly require restitution, his department views it as a measure of sincerity. He said that the return of alleged ill-gotten funds would demonstrate an applicant’s good faith and credibility before the state extends protection.
Remulla explained that the Department of Justice is evaluating affidavits and cooperation from dismissed engineers and contractors under consideration for witness protection, and emphasized that accountability, in his view, should also involve the surrender of questionable assets.
Senate pushback: requirement not in the law
Senator Rodante Marcoleta disagreed, arguing that neither Republic Act No. 6981, or the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act, nor the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure require restitution as a precondition. He cautioned against imposing obligations not written into the law, saying that doing so would amount to rewriting legislation.
Marcoleta underscored that state witnesses are admitted under conditions clearly defined by statute, such as not being the most guilty party and providing indispensable testimony, but restitution is not among them.
Malacañang: stolen wealth must be returned
The Palace has taken a firmer stance. In a statement last week, Malacañang said that individuals seeking witness protection in the flood control probe must return alleged stolen wealth before their applications can be approved. The directive reflects the administration’s position that public funds should be safeguarded and restored wherever possible.
Legal framework and expert views
Under RA 6981, witnesses granted protection must “comply with legal obligations and civil judgments,” but the law does not spell out restitution as a requirement for entry into the program. Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court likewise makes no mention of returning public funds as a precondition for discharge as a state witness.
Some legal commentators have cited Article 22 of the Civil Code, which requires anyone who acquires property without just legal ground to return it. Retired Justice Antonio Carpio has argued that this principle applies to alleged ill-gotten gains, even if the WPP law does not expressly mandate restitution.
Analysts also point out that demanding repayment upfront may be impractical. Determining the amount owed before a full trial or final accounting could raise due process issues, and critics warn that such a requirement might discourage potential witnesses from cooperating in high-level corruption cases.
