Whenever there is a congressional hearing on a scandal involving kickbacks from corruption, we can expect prominent figures from the halls of power to be implicated.

Top contractor-spouses Pacifico “Curlee” Discaya and Cezarah “Sarah” Discaya were involved in flood control projects worth billions of pesos with the Department of Public Works and Highways which, by their own admission, significantly contributed to the increase in their assets and enabled a life of extreme luxury.

As prominent contractors recognized for their significant involvement in major flood control projects, the couple’s testimony before the Senate — characterized mainly by their selective memory — has highlighted the complexities of legal responsibility and the pursuit of justice in the Philippines.

It also raised important questions about accountability in government contracts and the dynamics of witness protection in cases of alleged corruption, acknowledging the threat due to the “120 million Filipinos” who want them dead.

By revealing their truth or half-truth of the story, the Discaya couple believe they are demonstrating adequate cooperation with the lawmakers who are conducting separate inquiries in aid of legislation.

Pasig Mayor Vico Sotto, who defeated Sara in the last local elections in the city, urged the public to stay vigilant against the attempts of the Discaya couple to confuse the issues surrounding the ongoing flood control scandal.

Calling some of their stories lies, liars like the Discayas, he said, operate under a “logic in their own universe.”

“Ang sinungaling… (looking at the Discaya husband)... ay asawa ng magnanakaw,” he intoned. (The liar is the spouse of the thief.)

Bold, clear and courageous words in Filipino coming from a young man whom many believe should be our president when the time is right. Even a taho vendor or a vegetable seller understands his stance: the Discayas are positioning themselves to become state witnesses.

The Discayas are not the least guilty in the scandal; they are actually on top of the list of private contractors who benefited from DPWH projects. Worse, they have not shown remorse up to this time.

How can we justify giving protection or leniency to individuals who implicate others when they themselves played an integral role in the latest scam of the century?

Suppose we allow those who have directly benefited from corruption to find refuge under claims of self-preservation. In that case, we risk a moral hazard where complicity is rewarded and accountability is undermined.

The Discayas’ testimony outlined a grim picture of a corrupt system — up to 25 percent in commissions to DPWH executives and members of Congress. This revelation alone is enough to provoke outrage.

However, the situation is more complex than a binary view of guilt or innocence. The couple claims to fear for their lives, noting protests outside their home and speaking of witness protection as a means of ensuring their safety.

At what point does fear override moral responsibility? If the system encourages silence instead of accountability, we may end up in a cycle where the guilty remain hidden while the innocent are left vulnerable.

Any misstep by the authorities could set dangerous precedents that may impact not only those involved but also the overall confidence in the justice system.