Miriam mistaken on witness program

We were watching on TV the Senate blue ribbon committee hearing on the “pork barrel scam” last Feb. 13. As always, we were amused by the “lecture” delivered by Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, who loves to say the phrase “as a former trial judge.” (That must have been her “most defining moment,” but seriously we have heard nothing inspiring about her during that time in her life.)

What raised eyebrows was her cocksure dogmatism regarding the Witness Protection Program (WPP) under Republic Act No. 6981. Claiming to have the sole expertise to “educate” everyone about the nuisances and ramifications of that law, she pontificated that only the court (or in graft and corruption cases, the Sandiganbayan), not the Department of Justice,  has the authority to grant immunity to persons involved in crimes. To our chagrin, DOJ officials were in attendance but no squeak was heard from any of them.

What Senator Santiago said was inaccurate. Under the law, the DOJ (or, concededly, in graft and corruption cases, the Ombudsman) has the authority to grant such immunity under a “certification of admission” into the WPP. The court’s (or the Sandiganbayan’s) intervention is required only after a complaint or information is formally filed with it. Section 12 of that law (“effect of admission of a state witness into the program”) explicitly provides: “The certification of admission of a state witness into the program shall be given full faith and credit by the provincial or city prosecutor who is required not to include the witness in the criminal complaint or information, and if included therein, to petition the court for his discharge in order that he can be utilized as a state witness. The court shall order the discharge and exclusion of the said accused from the information.”

Moreover, the law—by explicitly saying “shall [not may] order the discharge and exclusion…”—leaves no discretion to the court on whether or not it should also give “full faith and credit” to that certification of absolute necessity (as determined by the DOJ) to use the accused as state’s witness.

—GEORGE DEL MAR,

gdmlaw111@gmail.com