Senate’s Lacson Expresses Doubts on Discayas’ Qualification as State Witnesses

Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo "Ping" Lacson expressed uncertainty on Thursday, September 11, regarding the eligibility of contractors Cezarah "Sarah" and Pacifico "Curlee" Discaya as potential state witnesses, citing inconsistencies in their testimonies and their earlier withdrawal of statements before the House of Representatives.

During the Kapihan sa Senado forum, Lacson was questioned about his stance on Senate President Vicente "Tito" Sotto III's decision not to endorse the recommendation to include the Discayas in the Witness Protection Program (WPP). Lacson clarified that Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin "Boying" Remulla had already denied the request, requiring restitution as a precondition.

"First of all, the Secretary of Justice already declined. He said one of his conditions is restitution. He also consulted with the Senate President, which likely influenced Senate President Sotto’s decision not to sign the recommendation," Lacson stated.

He further explained that the prior recommendation was issued under the previous Blue Ribbon Committee chair and is now "outdated." As the new chairman, Lacson emphasized the need to verify and personally approve any such endorsements.

Addressing the Discayas’ qualification as state witnesses, Lacson highlighted that their retraction of statements casts doubt on their credibility. "They retracted their statements. When they appeared before the House, they provided different accounts. How can they qualify when their testimony is inconsistent—one thing before the House, another here?" he questioned.

Lacson did not dismiss the possibility of their qualification but stressed that their credibility must be thoroughly evaluated under legislative immunity and the consistency of their testimonies.

"Following the procedure, they should first be granted legislative immunity. This will allow us to thoroughly test their credibility as potential state witnesses based on their testimonies," he added.

He also underscored important criteria for state witness protection, including that witnesses should not be the most culpable parties and their testimonies must be substantiated by independent evidence.

"If they are hiding something, should we allow them to escape accountability just to save themselves, despite the significant responsibilities they must answer for?" Lacson asked.

At present, Lacson revealed that no individual has been confirmed as a qualified state witness, stressing the significance of in-person hearings to assess the witnesses’ reliability.

"As of now, there is no qualified state witness since I am just about to start the hearings. It is more effective to question them face-to-face to gauge whether they are truthful. Therefore, I cannot yet conclude or make a judgment on whether they will qualify as state witnesses," Lacson concluded.