Two former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) engineers have asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to exclude from evidence several sworn statements they earlier executed in connection with a flood control anomaly, arguing these were submitted as part of their application to the Witness Protection Program (WPP).

Brice Hernandez and Jaypee Mendoza, who previously disclosed information on the alleged “modus operandi” in questionable flood control projects, filed separate counter-affidavits before the DOJ on 5 January.

The two are facing preliminary investigation for alleged involvement in a suspected ghost flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan. They have also been arraigned and are undergoing trial before the Sandiganbayan in a separate case involving another Bulacan project. They are currently detained at the New Quezon City Jail.

In his counter-affidavit, Hernandez sought the exclusion of at least three documents, including a “Whistleblower’s Report,” a joint affidavit and a “Salaysay,” claiming these were submitted in furtherance of their WPP application and should not be used against them.

Hernandez argued that using the statements as evidence would violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination and provisions of the Witness Protection Act, which he said limits the admissibility of statements given in the course of applying as a state witness.

He also claimed that he was pressured to sign one of the affidavits without fully reviewing its contents, alleging that investigators assured him the statements would be used against other public officials implicated in the alleged anomaly.

Mendoza, in his own counter-affidavit, said the complaint filed against them relied heavily on their statements.

The two had applied to become state witnesses but were not admitted into the program.

Acting Justice Secretary Fredderick Vida acknowledged that some of the statements were useful in building the cases but maintained that other witnesses continue to cooperate with authorities.

The DOJ has yet to rule on the admissibility of the questioned documents as the preliminary investigation remains ongoing.