Manila Bulletin
Philippines
National
Lacson: Discayas' credibility, testimonies in question for witness protection bid
Philippines
National
Lacson: Discayas' credibility, testimonies in question for witness protection bid
Lacson: Discayas' credibility, testimonies in question for witness protection bid
By Dhel Nazario
Published Sep 11, 2025 02:47 pm
Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo “Ping” Lacson on Thursday, Sept. 11, said the qualification of contractors Cezarah "Sarah" and Pacifico "Curlee" Discaya as possible state witnesses remains uncertain due to inconsistencies in their testimonies and their decision to retract statements before the House of Representatives.
Pacifico "Curlee" Discaya and Cezarah "Sarah" Discaya (Mark Balmores)
During the Kapihan sa Senado forum Lacson was asked if he favored Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III’s decision not to sign the recommendation placing the Discayas under the Witness Protection Program (WPP).Lacson pointed out that Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla had already declined the request, citing restitution as a condition.
“Unang-una nag-decline na si SOJ eh. Sinabi na niya na ang isang kondisyon niya is restitution. Nag-usap din sila ni Senate President kaya siguro yun ang naging basis ni Senate President Sotto na hindi na niya pirmahan yung recommendation (First of all, the Secretary of Justice already declined. He said that one of his conditions is restitution. He also spoke with the Senate President, which is probably the basis for Senate President Sotto’s decision not to sign the recommendation)," Lacson said.
He explained that the earlier recommendation was made under the previous Blue Ribbon Committee chair and was already “outdated,” stressing that he, as the new chairman, must validate and sign any such endorsement.On whether the Discayas qualify, Lacson noted their retraction raised doubts.“Eh kasi nag-retract sila, pagdating sa House iba naman ang sinasabi. How can they qualify kung hindi definite yung kanilang testimonya, pag nasa House iba sinasabi, pag nandito iba (It’sbecause they retracted — when they got to the House, they were saying something different. How can they qualify if their testimony isn’t definite, if they say one thing in the House and another thing here?),” he said.
While not ruling out the possibility, Lacson emphasized that the couple’s credibility must first be tested through legislative immunity and the consistency of their testimony.
“Kung susundan natin yung proseso, unahin na muna natin magkaroon sila muna legislative immunity. Matetest natin yung kanilang credibility as a possible state witness depending sa kanilang testimonya (If we follow the process, we should first grant them legislative immunity. That way, we can test their credibility as possible state witnesses depending on their testimony)," he added.
He also cited key requirements for state witness protection, including not being the most guilty, and the materiality of their testimony backed by independent evidence.
“Kung meron silang tinatago, papayagan ba natin para lang maligtas yung sarili nila, eh ang laki rin ng kanilang dapat pananagutan di ba? (If they’re hiding something, should we allow them to get away just to save themselves, when in fact they also have a huge responsibility to answer for, right?)" he asked.
At present, Lacson said no individual has been identified as a qualified state witness, stressing the importance of assessing witnesses in person.
“Sa ngayon wala pa, kasi ngayon lang ako maghe-hearing… Mas importante kaharap mo tinatanong mo, more or less ma-ga-gauge mo kung binobola ka o hindi. So I cannot at this point in time conclude or even make a judgment kung uubra ba silang State Witness (,As of now, there’s none yet, since I’m only about to hold the hearings… It’s more important to face them directly and ask questions, so you can more or less gauge if they’re trying to fool you or not. So at this point in time, I cannot conclude or even make a judgment on whether they can qualify as state witnesses)," Lacson said.