The atmosphere within the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing was nothing short of electric this week as the ongoing investigation into the massive Flood Control Project scandal reached a fever pitch. In a development that has sent shockwaves through the political landscape, Department of Justice (DOJ) Prosecutor General Richard Fadullon delivered a testimony that directly countered the narratives pushed by Senator Rodante Marcoleta, effectively turning the tables on what many expected to be a routine inquiry.

The hearing, which was initially convened to shed light on the alleged misuse of billions of pesos in public funds intended for flood mitigation, quickly morphed into a battle of legal interpretation and moral standing. At the center of the storm was the application of contractors Sarah and Curlee Discaya for the Witness Protection Program (WPP)—a move that has sparked intense debate regarding the conditions of immunity.

The Clash Over Restitution

Senator Marcoleta, known for his sharp and often aggressive questioning style, challenged the DOJ’s handling of the potential witnesses. His argument hinged on a technical interpretation of Republic Act 6981, or the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act. Marcoleta contended that the DOJ was “interfering” and imposing conditions not explicitly stated in the law—specifically, the requirement of “restitution,” or the return of alleged ill-gotten gains, before being admitted into the program.

Marcoleta’s position was clear: he accused the DOJ of circumventing the law to effectively block the Discaya couple from testifying, thereby suppressing what he claimed to be vital information. The Senator warned that such actions could amount to a “grave abuse of discretion,” arguing that if the law does not explicitly demand the return of money, the DOJ cannot enforce it.

However, the mood in the room shifted dramatically when Prosecutor General Fadullon took the microphone. In a calm but firm demeanor that contrasted sharply with the heated questioning, Fadullon defended the institution’s stance. He dismantled the idea that asking for restitution was an act of interference. Instead, he framed it as a fundamental issue of integrity and good faith.

“It is definitely not unreasonable,” Fadullon asserted, regarding the expectation that those admitting to involvement in corruption should return what was taken from the public coffers. His testimony clarified that while restitution might not be a written pre-condition in the statute, it acts as a “pledge” of sincerity. The DOJ’s message was unequivocal: immunity is not a free pass to keep the proceeds of a crime.

A Turning Point for the Investigation

This exchange is significant because it exposes a deep rift in how the investigation is being approached. For weeks, the narrative has been heavily influenced by the “surprise witnesses” and aggressive assertions from certain lawmakers. Fadullon’s testimony served as a reality check, reminding the committee and the public that the pursuit of truth cannot come at the expense of justice itself.

The phrase “Yari na” (It’s over/Done for) began circulating on social media shortly after the exchange, reflecting the public sentiment that the momentum had shifted. Fadullon’s refusal to back down suggested that the DOJ is not merely a passive participant but an active guardian of the rule of law. By insisting on accountability, the DOJ effectively questioned the motives of witnesses who seek protection while holding onto the fruits of the alleged anomalies.

Furthermore, this standoff casts a shadow over the credibility of the witnesses themselves. If the Discayas—and by extension, their political backers—are unwilling to commit to restitution, it raises serious questions about their true intentions. Are they here to help the government, or are they maneuvering to save themselves and their assets?

The Mystery of the “Missing” Witness

Adding fuel to the fire was the sidebar discussion regarding another controversial figure, Orly Guteza. Senator Marcoleta had previously championed Guteza’s “bombshell” testimony. However, recent revelations suggest that Guteza’s affidavit might be plagued with irregularities, including potential falsification. Fadullon noted that this witness never actually presented himself to the DOJ for proper vetting, further weakening the opposition’s reliance on these “star witnesses.”

The uncertainty surrounding Guteza’s whereabouts—with conflicting reports on whether he is safe or missing—adds a layer of mystery and urgency to the proceedings. It underscores the high stakes of this investigation, where careers, reputations, and billions of pesos are on the line.

Implications for the Future

What we witnessed in the Senate was more than just a legal argument; it was a clash of philosophies. On one side, a transactional approach to justice where immunity is traded for testimony regardless of the cost to the public. On the other, a principled stand that demands accountability as a prerequisite for protection.

Prosecutor General Fadullon’s performance has reassured many that the Department of Justice remains independent and vigilant. As the hearings continue, the pressure is now on Senator Marcoleta and his allies to prove that their push for witness protection without restitution is truly in the public interest, rather than a strategy to shield specific individuals from financial liability.

As the dust settles on this explosive hearing, one thing is certain: the Filipino public is watching closely. The demand for transparency has never been higher, and thanks to the firm stance taken by the DOJ, the path to the truth—while difficult—remains open. The days of unquestioned narratives are over; now, every claim must withstand the fire of scrutiny.