The Department of Justice (DoJ) was tight-lipped on the petitions of two key former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) officials to withdraw their sworn statements in support of their applications to the Witness Protection Program (WPP).

Brice Hernandez, a former assistant district engineer, and Jaypee Mendoza, a former construction chief, filed the motions after their affidavits — including a whistleblower report — were used in a preliminary investigation into an alleged ghost flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan.

The two argued that using the affidavits against them would violate their constitutional right against self-incrimination and protections under the Witness Protection Act.

DoJ spokesperson Polo Martinez declined to comment on the motions, citing the need to avoid pre-empting ongoing proceedings.

“I’ll have to confer with the panel of prosecutors. But what I can say is, if it’s an incident or motion in a case pending preliminary investigation, I cannot give any comment so as not to pre-empt the result of the proceedings,” Martinez told DAILY TRIBUNE.

In their motions, Hernandez and Mendoza said they were pressured into signing at least one affidavit late at night and were told it would be used only against higher-ranking officials.

Legal expert Edward Chico on Wednesday stressed that such claims must be backed by evidence before the courts can give them weight.

Chico, a DAILY TRIBUNE columnist, explained that affidavits submitted during a WPP application are generally inadmissible as evidence if the application is denied, except for impeachment purposes.

“Any affidavit or testimony given during the application process cannot be used in criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings against the applicant,” he said.

Chico added that allegations of pressure or insufficient review must be backed by evidence.

“At the end of the day, it is a fact-based evaluation. The court would consider any documentation, witness testimony, or circumstances that could show coercion or improper procedure,” he said.

Taken with skepticism

He clarified that once an applicant is admitted to the WPP, recanting their statements becomes the only legal remedy — though courts generally treat recantations with caution.

The motion underscores a legal safeguard for WPP applicants while raising concerns about how evidence is handled in DoJ investigations.

Hernandez and Mendoza remain detained at the New Quezon City Jail as the preliminary investigation into the Pandi flood control project continues. They are also facing separate cases before the Sandiganbayan involving other projects in Bulacan.

Chico emphasized that the admissibility of the statements could significantly affect the strength of the prosecution’s case.

“Understanding whether a statement is admissible depends on whether the WPP application was approved, the context in which the statement was made, and whether the individual was able to review it properly. These are not minor technicalities — they can affect the strength of the case,” he said.