The recent congressional hearings on the drug war under the former administration of President Rodrigo Duterte have brought to light new allegations surrounding the controversial anti-narcotics campaign.

One of the most striking testimonies came from former colonel Royina Garma, who revealed the reward system that allegedly incentivized law enforcement officers involved in extrajudicial killings. Her testimony adds a critical layer to the ongoing investigation into the conduct of the campaign and raises questions about accountability at various levels of government.

While Garma’s testimony is significant, her potential role as a state witness remains a subject of intense scrutiny. To be considered a state witness, Garma must meet the qualifications outlined in Philippine law, particularly under Republic Act 6981 or the Witness Protection, Security, and Benefit Act. This law outlines the strict criteria a witness must meet to be admitted to the Witness Protection Program (WPP) and be considered credible and reliable in court proceedings.

First and foremost, the person seeking to become a state witness must not appear to be the most guilty among the accused in the case. This means that if Garma played a more central or leadership role in the alleged extrajudicial killings or other related offenses, she may not qualify. The logic here is that the state witness program is designed to prioritize testimony from individuals who are willing to testify against more culpable parties.

Second, the testimony of the potential state witness must be absolutely necessary to the prosecution’s case. In other words, without Garma’s account, it would be exceedingly difficult to establish the facts of the case or secure a conviction against higher ranking officials. Garma’s inside knowledge of the operations could prove to be critical in painting a comprehensive picture of how the reward system allegedly operated.

Third, the testimony must be direct and materially contribute to the resolution of the case. Garma’s statements must not be hearsay or vague in nature, but rather offer clear and factual insights into the mechanics of the alleged scheme.

Lastly, there must be no other direct evidence available for the prosecution that could substitute for the testimony of the potential state witness. If there is other evidence that could effectively serve the same purpose, then her testimony might not be as critical.

Considering these criteria, Garma’s admission as a state witness is far from automatic. It will require thorough evaluation by the authorities to determine whether she can fill this role effectively. If she qualifies, her testimony could have far-reaching consequences for the investigation into the drug war and it could potentially expose higher-level involvement in the alleged extrajudicial killings.