The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Tuesday defended its decision to admit several former public works officials into the government’s witness protection program amid questions over whether they deserved immunity despite their alleged involvement in the flood control projects scam.

Last week, the DOJ announced that former public works executives Roberto Bernardo, Henry Alcantara, and Gerard Opulencia, along with contractor Sally Santos, had been admitted as state witnesses in cases linked to anomalous flood control projects.

Under Philippine law, a state witness enjoys immunity from prosecution, a privilege that has drawn criticism given the alleged roles of the former officials in the corruption scandal.

In a television interview, DOJ spokesperson Raphael Martinez said the panel of prosecutors handling the witness protection applications determined that the four individuals were the most qualified under the criteria set by law.

“[The panel] found that it is [they] who qualified the most,” Martinez said, explaining that their affidavits and testimonies were crucial in corroborating the statements of other witnesses and existing evidence in the DOJ’s possession.

The Witness Protection, Security, and Benefit Act, or Republic Act No. 6981, provides that an accused may be admitted as a state witness if they do not appear to be the most guilty, if there is an “absolute necessity” for their testimony, and if the offense involved is a grave felony.

Addressing concerns over why former public works officials were chosen, Martinez said the alleged anomalies in flood control projects were highly complex and involved multiple, compartmentalized phases.

He stressed that these anomalies are so complex and so compartmentalized in different phases.

Individuals who could testify to facts in one compartment cannot necessarily do so for the other compartments, he added.

Martinez explained that prosecutors faced the challenge of identifying individuals with sufficient knowledge across different stages of the scheme to connect the pieces and establish accountability at higher levels.

“So the challenge is for us to determine which individuals in these respective compartments have enough knowledge that we could tie the whole scheme together and point to bigger fish,” he said.

According to Martinez, this logic guided the panel’s decision to admit the former officials and the contractor as state witnesses, as their combined testimonies could help expose the full scope of the alleged corruption and strengthen the government’s cases.