Jesus Crispin Remulla and Senator Rodante Marcoleta engaged in a heated argument on Tuesday, clashing over whether restitution should be required for applicants to the Witness Protection Program (WPP) in connection with the multi-billion-peso flood control scam.
During a Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing on anomalous flood control projects, Remulla told Marcoleta that while restitution is not legally required to qualify for WPP, it should be considered a matter of moral obligation.
“Restitution is not one of the requisites. Is that correct?” Marcoleta asked.
“It’s not in the law,” Remulla admitted.
“But for me, hindi lang po batas ang nagdidictate nito (it’s not just the law that dictates this. It’s also what is morally right), what is expected of us,” Remulla added, referring to the billions allegedly lost through fraudulent infrastructure contracts.
Marcoleta pressed. “What do you mean by that, Mr. Secretary?”
“The requirements for admission to the WPP. Restitution is not part of it?,” Remulla replied.
“Yes, it is not,” Marcoleta affirmed.
Remulla, however, argued. “Pero hindi ho nangangahulugan na hindi namin pwede i-layout dyan depending on the case? (But that doesn’t necessarily mean we can’t include it, depending on the circumstances of the case?)."
He further argued that while restitution is not explicitly required, the Department of Justice may still consider it, particularly in financial crimes that impact the public treasury.
“This is a crime against the financial status of the Filipino people, the Philippine Republic, I think that it's just right that we ask [for restitution],” Remulla said.
Marcoleta questioned Remulla. “Mr. Secretary, are you amending the provision of the law?”
The DOJ secretary responded, “No, sir. But that is how we run the WPP.”
Marcoleta was quick to challenge Remulla’s stance, warning that altering the application of the law based on moral reasoning could have serious legal consequences.
“You may be disbarred from doing this,” Marcoleta said bluntly. “You do not change the provision of the law, Mr. Secretary. I am not expressing an opinion here. I am articulating the law.”
According to Marcoleta, restitution is part of the civil liability that follows a criminal conviction, not a prerequisite to accessing the WPP.
He emphasized that no court has yet ruled on the guilt or financial liability of the potential witnesses, making any demand for restitution premature and unlawful.
“It will come after. Paano mo sasabihin na magre-restitute ang isang tao? Mayroon na bang findings kung magkano ire-restitute or how it can be restituted? Naga-apply pa lang. Huwag po ninyong babaguhin ang requisite ng batas (How can you require restitution when there's no finding yet of how much should be restituted? The applicant hasn’t even been accepted yet. Just still applying. Don’t change the requisite of the law),” Marcoleta said.
Remulla said he respects Marcoleta’s opinion.
But Marcoleta told him. “It is not my opinion. It is in the law, Mr. Secretary.”
Despite repeated interjections from the senator, Remulla defended his position, arguing that while the law may not require restitution upfront, it is within the DOJ’s discretion to consider the overall gravity and context of the crime.
Marcoleta insisted that Remulla should “cite the law that it comes before.”
“Wala nga po sa batas eh. Huwag n'yo pong babaguhin ang batas,” the senator added.
“We’re operating on a unique set of facts, and all of these matters are being evaluated on the gravity of this financial crime cannot be underestimated,” Remulla replied.
The secretary added that encouraging voluntary restitution could demonstrate goodwill and sincerity on the part of the witness, contributing to justice and public healing.
Marcoleta denied that he is protecting the Discaya couple amid their bid for WPP.