No rights on immunity for our state witnesses

By Al S. Mendoza

 

AMONG our senators, one of the most sensible is Alan Peter Cayetano.

Now the Senate majority floor leader, Alan C. (his sister, Pia Cayetano, is also an incumbent senator) has not only been talking sense all this time, he is also the most consistent whenever issues – whether hot or not – hit the headlines.

As an example, Alan C. has just informed the public about the basic difference between a state’s witness (or state witness) and immunity.

He pointed out the fact that one can be a state witness but without immunity.

A rather weird set-up.

Alan C. has argued that is not politically correct.

And I quite agree.

In the first place, one is called a state witness because he becomes a friend of the state.

By testifying in the interest of the state, a state witness goes on the side of the state against persons accused of wrongdoing against the state.

However, our state witnesses have not historically been given automatic immunity rights, if not privileges.

By that, I mean a state witness can still be sued by anyone – bizarrely, even by the state itself.

Alan C. said that should not be the case.

I agree.

He said all state witnesses must have immunity from suits or they shouldn’t be called state witnesses at all.

Such examples would include Sandra Cam, the whistleblower on jueteng operations, and network ZTN deal whistleblower Jun Lozada.

Another would be that guy surnamed Ragaza(?), who exposed the multi-million bonuses (pabaon) for retiring generals in the military.

After the three have testified in the Senate as state witnesses, they would soon find themselves defendants in cases that are but trumped-up in a bid by those they had exposed to hooliganism to get back at them.

Isn’t it ironic that people trying to help protect the state become subjects of charges that are virtually designed for revenge purposes?

Now, we go to the P10-billion pork barrel fund scam.

How many state witnesses do we now have for the case?

Several of them, the most prominent would be Benhur Luy; they have emerged and seen by the public in the Senate Blue Ribbon probes.

And then the next to be granted state witness status was Ruby Tuason, who returned P40 million to the government because she said that was her commission from Janet Napoles, the alleged scam queen.

But like the others, who were also state witnesses, Luy and Tuason have no immunity from suits.

That’s not nice, said Alan C.

Again, I quite agree.  Wholeheartedly.

About time the law is revised to protect our state witnesses.

Back to Homepage

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments