By Atty. Howie Calleja
Our Department of Justice (DOJ) stands at a pivotal juncture, grappling with a profound ethical and legal dilemma: the admission of state witnesses, particularly those implicated in the most egregious acts of corruption. This discourse asserts, with unyielding conviction, that the mandatory restitution of ill-gotten gains is not merely a procedural step, but an indispensable and non-negotiable prerequisite for any applicant seeking the protective embrace of the Witness Protection Program (WPP).
A perilous chasm has opened within the very fabric of Republic Act No. 6971, the Witness Protection Law. Its Section 14, in its current interpretation, threatens to pervert the course of justice by ostensibly conferring immunity from penalty or forfeiture for compelled testimony. This statutory anomaly creates an egregious loophole, allowing architects of grand corruption to retain their illicit fortunes, effectively transforming state protection into a shield for plunder. The proponents of this narrow and perverse application of the law, the likes of Senator Rodante Marcoleta and Duterte supporter Jimmy Bondoc, would not just facilitate, but actively sanction, the “perfect crime” – where perpetrators walk free, their coffers overflowing with the very wealth they stole from the nation.
Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla’s unwavering insistence on restitution is not a bureaucratic whim; it is a legal and moral bulwark against the erosion of public trust. To countenance a system where individuals, having plundered the public purse, are then granted the sanctuary of state protection – complete with security and new identities – without disgorging their ill-gotten wealth, is an affront to every taxpayer. Restitution transcends mere punishment; it is the tangible manifestation of true remorse, the crucible of atonement, and an unequivocal commitment to repairing the gaping wounds inflicted upon the body politic.
While the requirement to be included in the Witness Protection Program may not explicitly require restitution, the spirit of the law demands its inclusion. Legal interpretations are not static relics; they must dynamically evolve to reflect the contemporary moral compass and the urgent exigencies of society. The foundational principles of whistleblower protection, the absolute imperative to prevent unjust enrichment, and the relentless pursuit of justice collectively mandate restitution as a sine qua non for WPP admission. Indeed, legal basis for restitution is clearly outlined under Article 22 of the civil code which prohibits unjust enrichment and reinforced by Section 5(d) of RA 6971 by requiring witnesses to agree and comply with legal obligations ( restitution or return of government money illegally obtained is a legal obligation) and civil judgments, underscoring that protection cannot be divorced from accountability.
The specious argument that restitution deters potential witnesses crumbles under scrutiny. True whistleblowers, driven by a genuine desire to expose corruption and serve the greater good, will not flinch from the opportunity to make amends. For them, restitution is not a burden, but a pathway to expiation, a profound contribution to the healing of a wounded nation. It distinguishes the genuinely repentant from those merely seeking refuge from prosecution.
In summation, the demand for restitution as a condition precedent for state witness admission is not merely legally defensible; it is a moral imperative that resonates with the very soul of justice. It ensures that the WPP remains a formidable instrument against crime, rather than a gilded cage for malefactors. Only by demanding that those who seek protection first pay their debt to society can we truly uphold the sanctity of our legal system and restore the shattered trust of the Filipino people.