Senator Rodante Marcoleta, on Tuesday, Oct. 21, clashed with Department of Justice (DOJ) officials over what he called an “imagined requirement” of restitution in the processing of applicants under the Witness Protection Program (WPP), particularly in reference to the case of the contractors Sara and Curlee Discaya.

Marcoleta raised this during the Senate finance subcommittee deliberation of the DOJ's proposed 2026 budget. During the exchange Marcoleta repeatedly clarified that he is not defending the Discaya couple.

He pressed DOJ OIC-Secretary Fredderick Vida and Undersecretary Jesse Hermogenes Andres to explain why restitution, the return of ill-gotten gains, was being imposed even though it is not explicitly stated in the law. Back in September, this was the subject of the debate between Marcoleta and then DOJ Secretary now Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla. Vida stated that he agrees with Remulla.

“The point, Mr. Chair, is they cannot even begin to be processed under the law,” Marcoleta said during the hearing.

“Kasi naglalagay kayo ng requirements which have not been included by law (Because you’re adding requirements that are not included in the law),” he added.

Andres cited Section 5 of the WPP law that allows for the inclusion of “legal obligations and civil judgments” in the memorandum of agreement between the DOJ and the witness.

“Before a person is provided protection under this act, he shall first execute a memorandum of agreement which shall set forth his responsibilities,” he read.

“So kasama sa mga (it's included in the) obligations…to comply with legal obligations and civil judgments,” he added.

This prompted Marcoleta to ask: “Mayroon na bang civil judgment (Is there a civil judgment)?” he asked.

Andres explained that other provisions of law, such as those under the Civil Code on unjust enrichment, should be read harmoniously with the WPP law.

But Marcoleta said that the law does not mention restitution in the first place.

"That is very simple,” he said.

“Huwag kayo mag imagine ng argument, Usec. Kapag ba hindi provided ng batas, magiging resonableng obligation under the provision you're quoting? (Don’t make up arguments, Usec. If something isn’t provided by the law, can it still be considered a reasonable obligation under the provision you’re quoting?)” he asked.

He even cited a Latin maxim: “Does the maxim ‘Expressio unius est exclusio alterius’ ring a bell to you?”

Andres confirmed knowing it, which means "the express mention of one thing is the exclusion of another".

“You are including an opinion which was not expressly enumerated under Section 10 of the law,” Marcoleta said.

Andres clarified that a witness can still be processed under the WPP but “cannot receive any of the benefits” until the matter of legal obligations is addressed.

Marcoleta said that Andres' opinion is trying to supplant the very clear and categorical provision of law.

“You are adding an opinion, and you're supplanting the basic provision of law. You cannot do that. The spring cannot rise higher than its source,” he said.

“How can you process the application if you're providing another requisite which is not even written in the law? You are imagining something that is not within the law," Marcoleta added.

Vida tried to offer a different perspective, stating that witnesses who admit to profiting from criminal activity must address that aspect before receiving protection. He gave an example that perhaps during the exchange of statements with the witness, the witness says, “I was part of this syndicate, and because of my involvement, I earned ₱10 million,” emphasizing that DOJ should first recover that amount before accepting the person into the WPP.

But Marcoleta still didn't budge.

“So ano nga sinabi sa inyo ng mga Discaya? Na-determine ninyo kung magkano ang kinita nila? Did they admit to you na sila ay nangulimbat ng ganito karaming pera?” he asked.

“I’m not defending them. Ginawa ko lang yan para ma-identify natin ang pinaka-mastermind nito. Yan lang, wala nang iba,” he clarified.

The senator suggested that the DOJ’s insistence on restitution might be preventing key witnesses from helping uncover bigger players.

When asked how much restitution the DOJ was requiring, Vida admitted, “Wala pa po sa estado na ganun (It’s not yet at that stage).”

“So samakatuwid, hindi mapoprocess talaga yan (So, therefore, it really can’t be processed),” Marcoleta replied.

The senator then cited DOJ data showing higher prosecution success rates for cases involving WPP witnesses,  95.3 percent compared to 80.5 percent in ordinary cases.