Marcoleta: Discayas don't need to return money for witness protection
MANILA, Philippines — Sen. Rodante Marcoleta has argued that the Discaya couple should not be required to return stolen funds in order to qualify for the government’s witness protection program, citing provisions in the law.
In a plenary speech Monday, September 15, Marcoleta questioned the refusal to place the couple under the Department of Justice’s Witness Protection Program. Senate President Tito Sotto declined to endorse Marcoleta’s request to Justice Secretary Boying Remulla, agreeing with Remulla’s earlier position that restitution was necessary.
Marcoleta disagreed. “Wala po sa tuntunin yun. Kung babasahin lamang po niya, ang Section 3 at Subsection 10 ng Republic Act 6981, wala po binabanggit dun na restitution, yung pagsasauli,” he said, referring to the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act. (It is not in the rules. If you read Section 3 and Subsection 10 of Republic Act 6981, it does not mention restitution.)
The former Blue Ribbon chair noted that the investigation had just begun, with no definite amount yet determined. The law, however, only required that testimony be “substantially corroborated in its material points.”
Questions on Discayas’ testimony
The couple has named officials from the Department of Public Works and Highways and the House of Representatives in alleged kickback schemes but have not mentioned senators.
Sen. Kiko Pangilinan pointed to inconsistencies, saying the Discayas claimed to have handled projects from 2016 to 2025 but only named personalities starting in 2022.
If they wanted to be state witnesses, they needed to provide their testimonies in full, not "edited," Pangilinan said.
Sotto, meanwhile, stressed that witnesses must not appear to be the most guilty.
“Kailangan tell-all. Hindi tell-half,” he said, echoing Pangilinan’s point that the Discayas had omitted names from earlier years, during the term of former president Rodrigo Dutgerte. (It needs to be tell-all, not tell-half.)
Conflicting claims
Marcoleta claimed that he had already spoken to Remulla, whom he said had already approved his referral of the couple to the program.
But Remulla refuted this at a press briefing, saying he made no such commitment to Marcoleta. He added that while restitution is not in the law, the DOJ applies its own standards and vetting.
“Definitely, there are many things that we have to consider when we want the person to be a state witness. The first question is, are they telling the whole truth?” Remulla said.
Minority bloc presses Sotto
Several minority bloc members took to the plenary to air criticisms against the newly installed Senate president.
Sen. Robin Padilla raised the chamber’s lack of response to photos showing him allegedly raising his middle finger during plenary. Photos of him seemingly raising his middle finger during the plenary session went viral. Padilla has debunked the photos himself.
Sotto was quick to address the issue, going on record to say that Padilla had not done so, and the matter was referred to the Committee on Public Information and Mass Media.
Minority lawmakers also pressed Sotto over his past statements to media, which they said were directed at them. Sotto insisted his remarks were misunderstood.
“You should not feel alluded to. I did not mention names,” Sotto said.
The senators further questioned why Sotto had allowed DPWH engineer Brice Hernandez to avoid Senate custody after he linked Sens. Joel Villanueva and Jinggoy Estrada to alleged flood-control kickbacks.
Hernandez had asked not to be returned to the Senate after testifying before the House. Sotto said he had the authority to make that decision as Senate president.
- Latest
- Trending
