OPINION
Ed Javier
Remulla's Stand Against Marcoleta Favors The Public
Photo credit: Senate PH
The clash between Justice Secretary Boying Remulla and Senator Rodante Marcoleta over the Witness Protection Program (WPP) is more than just another Senate hearing exchange.
It raises a fundamental question: must an applicant accused of corruption first return stolen or unjustly acquired money before being granted protection?
We are not lawyers, so we rely on legal experts.
Just yesterday, Law Dean Mel Sta. Maria, made it clear in a Facebook post: “Correct si Justice Secretary Remulla. Pwede gawing condition na bago mabigyan ng witness protection… ibalik muna ang nakaw-yaman o pera.”
Senator Marcoleta’s position is straightforward: the text of Republic Act 6981 or the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act, does not explicitly require restitution as a condition for admission to the WPP.
For him, the letter of the law should prevail. Witness protection, after all, is designed to encourage insiders to testify, even if they themselves may be involved in questionable acts.
By keeping the gate open strictly within the four corners of the law, Marcoleta argues, the integrity of the WPP is preserved.
On the other hand, Secretary Remulla has insisted that before protection is granted, there must also be restitution of funds or assets improperly acquired.
Critics first thought this stretched the law. But Sta. Maria explained that Section 5 of RA 6981 requires a Memorandum of Agreement where the witness promises to comply with “legal obligations and civil judgments.”
According to him, that includes the duty to return what was unjustly acquired.
Sta. Maria tied this further with the Civil Code. Articles 22 and 23 require restitution of ill-gotten gains, while the doctrine of unjust enrichment, nemo cum alterius detrimento locupletari potest, bars anyone from profiting at another’s expense.
The Supreme Court has affirmed this principle in cases like Republic v. Ballocanog (2008).
As Sta. Maria summed it up: “Hindi lang moral obligation, legal obligation pa. MALINAW.”
He also noted that once applicants sign the MOA, that contract itself creates binding obligations. Under Article 1306 of the Civil Code, stipulations in contracts are valid so long as they are not contrary to law or public policy.
Thus, if the MOA includes restitution, it becomes enforceable.
This strengthens Remulla’s stand. The MOA can validly require restitution before a witness is actually given protection.
While Marcoleta clings to the text of RA 6981, Remulla is supported by both the spirit of the law and the broader legal principles Sta. Maria outlined.
Importantly, Remulla’s position also ensures that ill-gotten assets can be returned quickly to the government, rather than being tied up in long court processes that, could drag on for decades.
Where does this leave us?
Both men have a point. Marcoleta is right that the law does not spell out restitution as a prerequisite.
But Remulla is equally right, perhaps more so, that justice cannot ignore unjust enrichment. Requiring restitution before granting WPP coverage is rooted in law, fairness, and accountability.
In the bigger picture, the Filipino public stands to benefit more from Remulla’s stand.
It reassures citizens that the WPP will not become a loophole for plunderers to gain protection without first giving back what they stole. At the same time, Marcoleta’s legal reminder is useful: it guards against overreach.
In the end, while both views matter, it is Remulla’s stand that better serves justice and the people. Because in a country long scarred by corruption, protection must go hand in hand with restitution.
This way, the WPP becomes both legally sound and morally credible.
Parehong may saysay ang posisyon ng dalawa, si Marcoleta sa titik ng batas, si Remulla sa diwa ng katarungan.
Pero tanungin natin ang taumbayan na laging talo sa nakaw na yaman: alin ba ang mas kailangan ngayon, teknikalidad, o tunay na pananagutan?
It raises a fundamental question: must an applicant accused of corruption first return stolen or unjustly acquired money before being granted protection?
We are not lawyers, so we rely on legal experts.
Just yesterday, Law Dean Mel Sta. Maria, made it clear in a Facebook post: “Correct si Justice Secretary Remulla. Pwede gawing condition na bago mabigyan ng witness protection… ibalik muna ang nakaw-yaman o pera.”
Senator Marcoleta’s position is straightforward: the text of Republic Act 6981 or the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act, does not explicitly require restitution as a condition for admission to the WPP.
For him, the letter of the law should prevail. Witness protection, after all, is designed to encourage insiders to testify, even if they themselves may be involved in questionable acts.
By keeping the gate open strictly within the four corners of the law, Marcoleta argues, the integrity of the WPP is preserved.
On the other hand, Secretary Remulla has insisted that before protection is granted, there must also be restitution of funds or assets improperly acquired.
Critics first thought this stretched the law. But Sta. Maria explained that Section 5 of RA 6981 requires a Memorandum of Agreement where the witness promises to comply with “legal obligations and civil judgments.”
According to him, that includes the duty to return what was unjustly acquired.
Sta. Maria tied this further with the Civil Code. Articles 22 and 23 require restitution of ill-gotten gains, while the doctrine of unjust enrichment, nemo cum alterius detrimento locupletari potest, bars anyone from profiting at another’s expense.
The Supreme Court has affirmed this principle in cases like Republic v. Ballocanog (2008).
As Sta. Maria summed it up: “Hindi lang moral obligation, legal obligation pa. MALINAW.”
He also noted that once applicants sign the MOA, that contract itself creates binding obligations. Under Article 1306 of the Civil Code, stipulations in contracts are valid so long as they are not contrary to law or public policy.
Thus, if the MOA includes restitution, it becomes enforceable.
This strengthens Remulla’s stand. The MOA can validly require restitution before a witness is actually given protection.
While Marcoleta clings to the text of RA 6981, Remulla is supported by both the spirit of the law and the broader legal principles Sta. Maria outlined.
Importantly, Remulla’s position also ensures that ill-gotten assets can be returned quickly to the government, rather than being tied up in long court processes that, could drag on for decades.
Where does this leave us?
Both men have a point. Marcoleta is right that the law does not spell out restitution as a prerequisite.
But Remulla is equally right, perhaps more so, that justice cannot ignore unjust enrichment. Requiring restitution before granting WPP coverage is rooted in law, fairness, and accountability.
In the bigger picture, the Filipino public stands to benefit more from Remulla’s stand.
It reassures citizens that the WPP will not become a loophole for plunderers to gain protection without first giving back what they stole. At the same time, Marcoleta’s legal reminder is useful: it guards against overreach.
In the end, while both views matter, it is Remulla’s stand that better serves justice and the people. Because in a country long scarred by corruption, protection must go hand in hand with restitution.
This way, the WPP becomes both legally sound and morally credible.
Parehong may saysay ang posisyon ng dalawa, si Marcoleta sa titik ng batas, si Remulla sa diwa ng katarungan.
Pero tanungin natin ang taumbayan na laging talo sa nakaw na yaman: alin ba ang mas kailangan ngayon, teknikalidad, o tunay na pananagutan?
Ed Javier
Ed Javier is a veteran communicator with over 35 years of experience in corporate, government, and advocacy communications, spanning the terms of seven Philippine presidents. He is also a political analyst, entrepreneur, and media professional. Drawing on this experience, he delivers clear, accessible analysis of political, governance, and business issues.
Sep 24, 2025
We are dedicated storytellers with a passion for bringing your brand to life. Our services range from news and media features to brand promotion and collaborations.
Interested? Visit our
Contact Us page for more information. To learn more about what we offer, check out our latest article on services and opportunities.
