In the Blue Ribbon Committee hearing in the Senate, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla and Sen. Rodante Marcoleta debated over the idea of “restitution” in the context of the witness protection program.
Politically, I am not an ally of either of these two men. However, as far as the issue in this debate is concerned, I agree with Secretary Remulla. However, I do not agree with him when he said yes to Sen. Erwin Tulfo concerning the “bending” of the law. The basis of my agreement with Remulla is Republic Act 6981, Art. 5, (d), which says that, for a person to be provided protection under this act, he/she shall have “to comply with ‘legal obligations’ and civil judgments against him.”
The term “legal obligations” is a broad, general term. It could refer to several “specific types of legal obligations.” It could be seen, then, that this meaning of the law “allows” that “restitution” can be included as one among the “legal obligations” to be complied with by a person applying for protection.
Now, this law neither explicitly requires nor prohibits “restitution before or after protection.” This law is silent on the specific issue concerning “before” or “after.” It is therefore open to interpretation as either “restitution-before-protection” or “restitution-after-protection.”
This silence of the law, then, warrants that it is left to the implementing body (in this case, the Department of Justice under Remulla) to demand “restitution” either “before” or “after” protection, as a “legal obligation” under Article 5, (d) of this Act. It can be said, then, that Remulla is right when he responded to Senator Marcoleta, saying, “It can come before or after, sir.”
In the debate, while Senator Marcoleta interpreted restitution as something “after” protection, Remulla has interpreted it as something “before” protection. The question now is which of them is in accordance with the spirit of this law in Article 5, (d)?
It could be seen that Remulla is the one in line with the spirit of this law. It is based on the word, “comply.” The law says: “Before a person is provided protection under this act, he shall first execute a Memorandum of Agreement which shall set forth his responsibilities including: (d) to ‘comply’ with legal obligations ….”
From the semantic point of view, the word “comply” means that a “thing” shall be done first or beforehand. In other words, the word “comply” warrants that a “something” must be prior in order for the “other thing” to be provided for. In this case, “restitution” is something that shall come as prior condition in order for the protection to be provided.
Therefore, Secretary Remulla’s interpretation that “restitution” must be complied with beforehand is just within the boundary of this law, and is therefore justifiable. Demanding such a restitution is warranted by this law indirectly. He did not modify or amend the law according to his wishes. He could be seen to be in the right track.
In addition, “restitution” could also be seen as proof that a person involved in a crime is really sincere in his/her desire to become a state witness. Biblically, the story of Zacchaeus, the tax collector, shows repentance by restitution. “But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, ‘Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.’” (Lk.19:8)