Ruby Tuason and the WPP: Some criminals are luckier than others

ImageThe recent admission of pork barrel scam co-conspirator Ruby Tuason highlights anew the political nature  of the Witness Protection Program. Contrary to popular thinking, the WPP and the discharge of a witness as a state witness are two different things. The first is an executive act which, for all intents and purposes, is under the control and supervision of the Secretary of Justice, The latter is a judicial act and will require that the person sought to be discharged as a state witness first be charged in court.

The Witness Protection Program was created by an act of Congress, RA 6981. Under this statute, a person may either apply to the program if:

a) the offense in which his testimony will be used is a GRAVE FELONY as defined under the Revised Penal Code, or its equivalent under special laws;

b) his testimony can be substantially CORROBORATED in its material points;

c) he or any member of his family within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity is subjected to THREATS TO HIS LIFE OR BODILY INJURY or there is a likelihood that he will be KILLED, FORCED, INTIMIDATED, HARASSED OR CORRUPTED to prevent him from testifying, or to testify falsely, or evasively, because or on account of his testimony.

As a consequence of being admitted into the program, a protected witness may be granted immunity for the crime for which he is testifying, be granted protection and a safe house, and may even keep his loot. This is because according to the web page of the DOJ, a person admitted into the program “may not be subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for any transaction, matter or thing concerning his compelled testimony or books, documents or writings produced.”

A discharge as state witness, on the other hand, is pursuant to Section 7, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court. Unlike the WPP, the Rules of Court require that a state witness should have already been charged for a crime in court. A person then can be discharged as a State witness if the court is satisfied that:

(a)   There is ABSOLUTE NECESSITY for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;

(b)   There is NO OTHER DIRECT EVIDENCE AVAILABLE for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said accused;

(c)   The   testimony   of said   accused   can   be   substantially CORROBORATED  in its material points;

(d)   Said accused does NOT appear to be the MOST GUILTY; and

(e)   Said accused has NOT at any time been CONVICTED of any offense involving moral turpitude.”

While both provide for testimonial immunity for the accused who will testify for the state, it is clear that the WPP provides for more benefits. This  includes protection,  a safe house,  and even the right to keep his loot. Moreover, unlike the discharge of a state witness, a person may be admitted into the WPP and be accorded all benefits of the program, including immunity form prosecution, on a very low threshold, that the testimony may be corroborated on its material points. It does not matter hence if the testimony is redundant nor that the testimony will not involve new matters that only the witness can testify on.

Simply put, admission into the WPP -which is tantamount to impunity for one’s criminal acts – is a highly political act. Unlike discharge of a state witness in court, all that is required is that there must be an alleged threat on the life of the witness and that the testimony is subject to corroboration. This is why many are aghast at the possibility that Ruby Tuason, who should be equally be prosecuted as Enrile, Estrada et al, appears to be off the hook. Just because the Secretary of Justice now admits that the cases she filed in connection with the PDAF scam does not have her “slam dunk” testimony, she now wants an equally corrupt character to be off the hook.

I have always believed in good governance and that all corrupt people in government should be thrown behind bars. In this regard, we must ensure that all those who stole from the public coffers should all spend the rest of their lives behind bars, Certainly, the admission to the WPP of Ruby Tuason, including her right now  to keep part of her loot, as I think she has said that she will only return a measly P 40 million, is more reason for decent citizens to be aghast at the manner by which the WPP is being implemented.

The WPP, including the Rules of Court provision on state witnesses, exists to ensure that those who breach the law should be punished for their acts. It certainly should not be implemented in a manner to make some criminals appear luckier than others.


6 comments on “Ruby Tuason and the WPP: Some criminals are luckier than others

  1. R. B. Marmita says:

    That some criminals are luckier has been true ever since…but only especially in our country.

  2. Zaldy Laudencia says:

    Professor Harry,

    Some criminals — even those already convicted – do not only “appear luckier than others.” They are luckier than others.

    One of the luckier ones is Jaime Ponce de Leon. Two divisions of the Sandiganbayan convicted him (and seven DPWH officials) of 27 counts of graft and sentenced him to a total of 203 years imprisonment. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions in 1990 and 1999.

    But he never spent a day in jail. Why? He went into hiding. Then, on 5 March 2007, he filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion where he stated that he would voluntarily serve his sentence. On 12 April 2007, the day he was about to enter the New Bilibid Prison (NBP), President Arroyo pardoned him. The pardon document greeted the Sandiganbayan officers who escorted de Leon to the NBP.

    Rizalde F. Laudencia

  3. Harry I could go down a lost of people who have been exposed as criminals, GMA, mike the crook lawyer arroyo, corona, angelo reyes, oca marino, ruthy guingona, manny garcia, the ampituans, dozens or lawyers, senators and congressman in the philippines, now Id like you to name one person who has been convicted in court and sentenced to prison… not one,,, you bark about shit but never admit its the putrid immoral culture here that is the problem,, when filipinos become moral people,, everything else will fix its self,, and not until    Reproduction, copying, or redistribution for commercial purposes of any materials or design elements on this e-mail is strictly prohibited without the express written permission of Daniel N. Keener. Permission is granted only when certain limited criteria are met. For information on requesting such permission, please e-mail. This email message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains information that may be confidential and/or copyrighted. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender by reply email and immediately delete this email. Use, disclosure or reproduction of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. No representation is made that this email or any attachments are free of viruses. Virus scanning is recommended and is the responsibility of the recipient.

  4. aaron legaspi says:

    Sir Harry you are aware of the adage “in order the break the rules you must first master it.” Unfortunately the worst of your profession has already done that as early as 1972 when martial law was declared and the mastery continues up to now. Anyway you also know that in a perfect world any Supreme Court on its own can correct thru jurisprudence any shortcomings of the written law by looking at its spirit/intent. Unfortunately again your profession has bastardized your noble kuno profession especially those appointed as Judges/Justices.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s