The recent admission of pork barrel scam co-conspirator Ruby Tuason
highlights anew the political nature of the Witness Protection Program.
Contrary to popular thinking, the WPP and the discharge of a witness as
a state witness are two different things. The first is an executive act
which, for all intents and purposes, is under the control and
supervision of the Secretary of Justice, The latter is a judicial act
and will require that the person sought to be discharged as a state
witness first be charged in court.
The Witness Protection Program was created by an act of Congress, RA
6981. Under this statute, a person may either apply to the program if:
a) the offense in which his testimony will be used is a GRAVE FELONY
as defined under the Revised Penal Code, or its equivalent under special
laws;
b) his testimony can be substantially CORROBORATED in its material points;
c) he or any member of his family within the second civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity is subjected to THREATS TO HIS LIFE OR BODILY
INJURY or there is a likelihood that he will be KILLED, FORCED,
INTIMIDATED, HARASSED OR CORRUPTED to prevent him from testifying, or to
testify falsely, or evasively, because or on account of his testimony.
As a consequence of being admitted into the program, a protected
witness may be granted immunity for the crime for which he is
testifying, be granted protection and a safe house, and may even keep
his loot. This is because according to the web page of the DOJ, a person
admitted into the program “may not be subjected to any penalty or
forfeiture for any transaction, matter or thing concerning his compelled
testimony or books, documents or writings produced.”
A discharge as state witness, on the other hand, is pursuant to
Section 7, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court. Unlike the WPP, the
Rules of Court require that a state witness should have already been
charged for a crime in court. A person then can be discharged as a State
witness if the court is satisfied that:
(a) There is ABSOLUTE NECESSITY for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;
(b) There is NO OTHER DIRECT EVIDENCE AVAILABLE for the proper
prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said
accused;
(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially CORROBORATED in its material points;
(d) Said accused does NOT appear to be the MOST GUILTY; and
(e) Said accused has NOT at any time been CONVICTED of any offense involving moral turpitude.”
While both provide for testimonial immunity for the accused who will
testify for the state, it is clear that the WPP provides for more
benefits. This includes protection, a safe house, and even the right
to keep his loot. Moreover, unlike the discharge of a state witness, a
person may be admitted into the WPP and be accorded all benefits of the
program, including immunity form prosecution, on a very low threshold,
that the testimony may be corroborated on its material points. It does
not matter hence if the testimony is redundant nor that the testimony
will not involve new matters that only the witness can testify on.
Simply put, admission into the WPP -which is tantamount to impunity
for one’s criminal acts - is a highly political act. Unlike discharge of
a state witness in court, all that is required is that there must be an
alleged threat on the life of the witness and that the testimony is
subject to corroboration. This is why many are aghast at the possibility
that Ruby Tuason, who should be equally be prosecuted as Enrile,
Estrada et al, appears to be off the hook. Just because the Secretary of
Justice now admits that the cases she filed in connection with the PDAF
scam does not have her “slam dunk” testimony, she now wants an equally
corrupt character to be off the hook.
I have always believed in good governance and that all corrupt people
in government should be thrown behind bars. In this regard, we must
ensure that all those who stole from the public coffers should all spend
the rest of their lives behind bars, Certainly, the admission to the
WPP of Ruby Tuason, including her right now to keep part of her loot,
as I think she has said that she will only return a measly P 40 million,
is more reason for decent citizens to be aghast at the manner by which
the WPP is being implemented.
The WPP, including the Rules of Court provision on state witnesses,
exists to ensure that those who breach the law should be punished for
their acts. It certainly should not be implemented in a manner to make
some criminals appear luckier than others.
source: Manila Standard Column of Atty Harry Roque
No comments:
Post a Comment