“We cannot allow the masterminds of this grand theft to escape accountability by turning into state witnesses.”

This was the sentiment that ACT Teachers Partylist Rep. Antonio Tinio had when it came to the Sandiganbayan Second Division’s denial to exclude former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Secretary Manuel Bonoan to serve as a state witness in the flood control mess.

Tinio argued that Bonoan was not a mere “bystander” issue, believing that the former Public Works chief was among those that orchestrated the scam that led to billions of public funds being misused.

While asserting that Bonoan should be charged for the crimes he allegedly committed, the solon also acknowledged that the former’s testimonies would be key in implicating President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. as one of the beneficiaries of the fraudulent scheme.

“As the former DPWH Secretary, he had direct knowledge of how flood control budgets were allocated, disbursed, and diverted. His testimony is crucial in establishing the chain of command that leads all the way to the highest office of the land,” he said in a statement.

Amid heightened public interest with ensuring that all officials and personalities involved in the scheme were arrested, Tinio stressed that state prosecutors owed it to the public to pursue the trail of evidence to the fullest and ensure that public figures would be charged to the highest extent of the law.

“The Filipino people deserve nothing less than the full prosecution of all those involved, from the former Speaker to the former DPWH Secretary, and most importantly, to the President himself if evidence so warrants,” he said.

In a decision released on 3 August, the anti-graft court maintained that Bonoan could not be excluded in the charge by means of amending its original information that it filed since Estrada was already arraigned for the case.

Citing a ruling from the Supreme Court, it was established that such decisions would prejudice the rights of other accused in the case, stressing that a particular respondent that was arraigned for a particular information was “entitled” to rely on the same.

The Office of the Ombudsman had earlier expressed its intention to exclude Bonoan as it sought to strengthen its “grand case” against former House Speaker Martin Romualdez, one of the individuals that the investigative agency believed was a “mastermind” of the issue.

Recent developments in the bid, however, have implied that there may be a decision to drop Bonoan as a witness as Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla stated that the former was not being transparent with his answers to their investigators.

“There are questions that he isn’t answering properly,” Remulla told reporters.