Senator Rodante Marcoleta insisted on Tuesday, Sept. 23, that under the law, there's no need for restitution in applying someone to the Witness Protection Program (WPP).

A heated argument ensued between him and Department of Justice (DOJ) Jesus Crispin "Boying" Remulla during the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing into the anomalous flood control projects, which stemmed from his insistence on the admittance of contractors Pacifico “Curlee” and Cezarah “Sarah” Discaya into the WPP.

Marcoleta asked Remulla, recalling that in the previous hearing, they somehow settled the issue that restitution is not a requisite for an applicant to the WPP.

Remulla agreed that it's not in the law but for him, it's not just the law that dictates the situation.

"It's also what is morally right. What is expected of us, yan po kasi kahit hindi po nakalagay sa batas, mga given po yan sa ating lipunan (because even if it is not written in the law, these things are already considered ‘givens’ in our society)," Remulla added.

But Marcoleta insists, in the process, restitution is not one of the requisites. Is that correct?

Yet Remulla said that under the terms of this case being a financial crime -- a crime against the financial status of the Filipino people and the Philippine Republic -- he thinks that it's just right that we ask.

At this point, Marcoleta asked him if he was amending the provision of the law.

Remulla denied this but stated that is how they run the WPP.

"I am operating from the vantage point of the reason behind the law, sir. What is the reason behind the law? So that we can get justice, and justice can only be attained if there is restitution. So that is the principle behind all of these things we are talking about now," Remulla added.

Marcoleta still insisted that restitution will come after, yet Remulla said that it can come before or after.

"You cite the law that it come before? Wala nga po sa batas eh. Huwag n'yo pong babaguhin ang batas, Mr. Secretary (It’s not even in the law. Don’t go changing the law, Mr. Secretary)," he said.

Remulla said that they are operating on a unique set of facts, and all of these matters are being evaluated on the gravity of this financial crime.

Marcoleta then said that he's "very sorry" for such reasoning.

Remulla said that he's very sorry too that Marcoleta does not agree with him, but he respects his opinion, and that he will carry out their job as they deem fit.

However, Marcoleta said that he's not expressing an opinion, but he's articulating the provision of law and that Remulla should not change the provision of law, adding that Remulla may be disbarred from doing this.

Meanwhile, Senator Erwin Tulfo demanded that contractors and officials caught in the flood control scandal return the public funds they allegedly siphoned from the projects.

Tulfo said this as he echoed the voices of the thousands of Filipinos who protested on September 21.

"I don't know if you were listening to the calls of our countrymen, thousands of them who attended the rallies in People Power Monument and Luneta," Tulfo stated.

"They were not only shouting against stealing; they were also calling for the return of their money,” he added.

Recently, Sen. Erwin Tulfo declared that the 21 September across the Philippines, attended by thousands of Filipinos, sends a “loud and clear” message to the government officials.

On the other hand, Senator Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan stressed that there is no law that prevents those involved in the flood control corruption scandal from giving back stolen funds and luxury vehicles, among others.

Pangilinan furthered that while no law requires state witnesses to surrender stolen funds and goods, the government can be “broader” in its implementation of programs and laws, especially if the offer to surrender is voluntary.

“In fact, yung pagbabalik (restitution) is a sign of cooperation, which the courts will eventually consider when it sentences or if it provides the exemption and the immunity, hindi po ba?” Pangilinan asked Remulla.

The senator said that this should be a “guide” for those applying to be state witnesses in the current corruption issue, that their cooperation is a “sign” to the courts to possibly grant them exclusion, exemption, or immunity.