Of state witnesses and big, bold reforms

Only in the Philippines can someone who has been implicated in a massive corruption scandal feel like he’s been robbed when asked to return the money.

- IRIS GONZALES

This was what contractor Curlee Discaya, whose wife Sarah is detained for graft and malversation charges over an alleged ghost project, told the Senate Blue Ribbon committee. This was how he felt, he said, when asked to restitute the money to the government in order to qualify for the Department of Justice’s Witness Protection Program.

“I can’t say how much it is. Because for me, it feels like we were the ones who were being robbed,” he told the hearing.

There is a sort of moral inversion here where those who took public funds feel aggrieved when asked to return them.

Why, in the first place, should the couple be considered state witnesses, along with those on the list — former public works officials Roberto Bernardo, Henry Alcantara, Gerard Opulencia and contractor Sally Santos?

Are they really qualified to be state witnesses?

I am well aware that a state witness is necessary for the perpetrators, especially the masterminds, to be brought to justice, but are these four individuals really among the least guilty? Some of these state witnesses have amassed so much wealth that the amount they vowed to turn over to the government could be just a drop in the bucket.

Bernardo has promised P1 billion in restitution to the state while Alcantara has already returned some P180 million.

The amounts should be significantly higher. Remember, Alcantara spent P150 million in a casino in one night alone while Bernardo, say my sources, has amassed quite anumber of properties, including luxury items. The government must come after these, too.