The Senate’s Blue Ribbon Committee hearing turned into another arena of fiery exchanges as Justice Secretary Boying Remulla and Senator Rodante Marcoleta locked horns over whether controversial flood-control contractors Sarah and Curlee Discaya should be admitted as state witnesses.
At the heart of the debate was the question of restitution. Secretary Remulla explained that while restitution of illegally acquired assets is ultimately a court order, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has long encouraged potential state witnesses to surrender such assets as an act of good faith.
“It’s also what is morally right,” Remulla stressed, pointing out that surrendering ill-gotten wealth demonstrates sincerity in cooperating with the government.
But Marcoleta was quick to challenge him. “Is that part of the law?” he asked pointedly, suggesting that the DOJ might be judging the Discayas prematurely, even before a formal case has been filed.
Remulla countered that Marcoleta’s line of questioning muddled the real issue. The law recognizes that restitution comes from the courts, he explained, but morality and accountability demand more than the bare minimum.
The exchange revealed more than just a legal debate—it laid bare the political undercurrents surrounding the Discayas’ potential testimony. Critics observed that Marcoleta seemed unusually fixated on defending the couple, even foregoing cross-examination of other key figures, such as the so-called “BGC Boys.” The senator’s single-minded focus raised eyebrows, fueling speculation about why he was so intent on pressing the Discaya issue.
In truth, Remulla’s argument carried weight. Asking the Discayas to return their alleged share of the spoils is not only consistent with the principle of restitution but also underscores their implicit acknowledgment of guilt. By contrast, Marcoleta’s insistence on legal technicalities seemed less about defending due process and more about shielding the couple from deeper accountability.
The hearing underscored a critical tension: is the justice system merely about ticking legal boxes, or is it also about demanding moral responsibility from those entangled in corruption? For now, the Discayas remain at the center of the storm, while the public is left asking the same question: Why is Marcoleta so determined to defend them?