Senate Hearing Reveals Clash Over Justice and Law in Flood-Control Scam Probe

During a Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing investigating massive losses from fraudulent flood-control projects, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla and Senator Rodante Marcoleta engaged in a heated confrontation that underscored contrasting interpretations of justice and legal principles.

Remulla proposed that contractors seeking witness protection should be required to first return the public funds they allegedly misappropriated. In response, Senator Marcoleta vehemently opposed this notion, asserting that the law mandates restitution only after a party is proven guilty. He warned, "Restitution can only come after guilt is established. Huwag ninyong babaguhin ang batas."

Standing firm, Remulla argued his stance was rooted in upholding true justice rather than altering the law. He emphasized, "This crime strikes at the very financial heart of the republic. The people deserve restitution, not just testimonies." Marcoleta retorted with a sharp warning, "You may be disbarred from doing this."

The exchange evolved into a broader debate between strict legal adherence and moral imperative. Remulla and his supporters cited widespread public outrage over the billions lost to fraudulent projects as justification for a more expansive application of witness protection. Senator Raffy Tulfo and Senator Erwin Tulfo echoed this sentiment, with Erwin stating, "Sometimes you have to bend the law to please the people," while Raffy called for demonstrating goodwill to the public.

Senator Francis Pangilinan referenced a recent case involving a former DPWH engineer who admitted to corruption and surrendered luxury vehicles as evidence that restitution, though not explicitly mandated by law, aligns with the ethical pursuit of justice.

At the heart of the controversy is the staggering amount of money involved. The Department of Finance estimates losses of up to ₱118.5 billion since 2023, with environmental watchdogs suggesting figures near $18 billion. The scandal has already resulted in the removal of key legislative leaders and sparked widespread public protests.

Whistleblowers, such as ex-Bulacan engineer Brice Hernandez, detailed how insiders allegedly divided profits from fictitious projects, fueling public anger.

Beyond monetary losses and political fallout, the core issue remains whether legal statutes should be applied rigidly or flexibly to restore public trust. Marcoleta cautioned against permitting "moral shortcuts" that could undermine the rule of law, while Remulla and his allies contended that without restitution requirements, witness protection risks becoming a shield for corruption.

Caught between these conflicting views are the Filipino people, torn between adherence to legal frameworks and a profound desire for justice and fairness.

The hearings continue, but the confrontation between "You may be disbarred" and "We will carry out our job as we deem fit" may well influence both the resolution of the flood-control scandal and the broader direction of justice in a nation grappling with deep-rooted corruption.