Missing the mark

The recent Senate hearings have allowed taxpayers to observe a moral and legal spectacle regarding the flood control scams affecting the nation.

Should the alleged perpetrators, including contractors such as the Discaya couple and officials from the Department of Public Works and Highways, be required to return the stolen funds to be eligible for the Department of Justice’s Witness Protection Program (WPP)?

Feisty Senator Rodante Marcoleta strongly opposed the requirement, stating that the law does not mandate restitution when approving the WPP. 

As a concerned taxpayer, there is more to this issue than meets the eye.

Respecting the rule of law is crucial, but it is also important to recognize the underlying moral issues at play regarding the WPP, which the justice secretary has the discretion to address.

The flood control scams involved not just financial theft; they were a betrayal of public trust and a direct attack on the welfare of Filipinos. 

When the very foundation of public infrastructure is compromised by corruption, the consequences reach far beyond the mere numbers in a ledger. Lives are affected, communities suffer, and angry taxpayers rightfully demand accountability.

Senator Erwin Tulfo’s demand for restitution echoed the broader sentiment of many Filipinos who took to the streets Sunday to voice their discontent. 

People are not merely asking for punitive measures against the wrongdoers; they are calling for the restoration of what was taken from them — money that should have been used for critical public services. 

Marcoleta’s insistence that restitution cannot precede a conviction disregards an important aspect of justice: the restoration of public confidence in our systems. 

Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla rightly identified the moral obligation to demand restitution as part of the broader framework of good governance. It is not an amendment to existing provisions but a call for ethical standards that align with the expectations of justice in our society.

Allowing individuals implicated in massive corruption to enter the WPP without first addressing the issue of returning stolen funds sends a dangerous message — that financial misconduct can lead to leniency.

In cases of massive fraud and corruption, it is not only fair but necessary to consider the moral implications of allowing individuals who have profited from their crimes to benefit from government protections without some form of restitution. 

By advocating for a legalistic view that prioritizes procedure over principle, Marcoleta risks undermining the very efficacy of the justice system. 

The fight against corruption requires a holistic approach — one that encompasses not only legal repercussions but also moral clarity and a commitment to restoring what has been taken from the people.

Marcoleta’s resistance to requiring the return of stolen money by the Discayas as a precondition for the Witness Protection Program ultimately misses the point. 

DPWH engineers Henry Alcantara and Brice Hernandez had no problem returning the people’s money in exchange for enrollment in the WPP. The Discayas remain silent on why they should return the money; it was Marcoleta who was noisy about why they should not.

As representatives of the people, lawmakers must uphold the law and exemplify the moral integrity expected of them. After all, Marcoleta owes his position to the people.

Yes, there is a moral imperative for restitution. I don’t understand why Marcoleta missed the mark.

For feedback, text to 09451450681 or email at cynchdb@gmail.com