DOJ: No state witness yet in ‘ghost’ flood control probe

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has yet to grant state witness status to any individual in connection with alleged “ghost” flood control projects, a DOJ spokesperson said Thursday.

During a press briefing, DOJ spokesperson Polo Martinez clarified that applications for witness protection are still under evaluation and that restitution of stolen public funds is required before immunity can be granted.

Martinez distinguished between a “covered witness” and a “state witness” under the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act. “When we say covered witness, their application has been considered and is being evaluated, but there has been no determination yet that they are state witnesses,” he said. “A state witness enjoys full immunity from suit. A covered witness has only provisional protection.”

The DOJ has no set timetable for completing evaluations, describing the process as “careful and meticulous.” Restitution, or the return of unlawfully acquired funds, remains a prerequisite for state witness benefits. “If money was stolen from government coffers, it must be returned. That’s common sense and a matter of justice,” Martinez said.

He added that the amount to be returned would be determined case by case and formalized in a memorandum of agreement between the DOJ and the prospective state witness. No restitution agreements have been signed so far.

Martinez also confirmed that the Ombudsman has deputized the DOJ to conduct preliminary investigations into five ghost flood control projects. A DOJ task force is leading the probe, with prosecutors targeting completion within a month.

Six freeze orders have been issued by the Court of Appeals at the request of the Anti-Money Laundering Council against certain Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) officials and contractors linked to the projects. Martinez said no freeze orders have been issued against elected officials yet, but cautioned that this could change.

He declined to comment on the reasons behind the Ombudsman’s referral but said the DOJ is now acting as the “deputized arm” to prosecute the cases if warranted by evidence.