Prosecutors hit transfer of witness program

Screengrab from https://www.doj.gov.ph/

MANILA, Philippines–Government prosecutors have expressed opposition to a bill in the House of Representatives that seeks to transfer from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to the courts supervision of the Witness Protection Program (WPP), which takes under its wings key witnesses in criminal cases.

Prosecutor General Claro Arellano, chief of the National Prosecution Service (NPS), said House Bill No. 4583, authored by Deputy Speaker Sergio Apostol, would undermine the ability of government prosecutors to handle the witnesses.

Arellano, head of the country’s more than 2,500 prosecutors, warned that the proposal—if approved by Congress—could also have grave repercussions in the dispensation of justice.

“The proposal to remove the WPP [from] the DOJ would seriously undermine our prosecutors’ ability to obtain and sustain our witnesses’ collaboration in the investigation and case build-up,” he said in a statement.

“Dismantling lawless elements in our society requires getting information that can be difficult to obtain without witnesses,” he added.

Depoliticize WPP 

Apostol’s bill seeks to “depoliticize” the WPP, which was established in April 1991 under Republic Act No. 6981, or the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act.

The program, according to the DOJ website, “seeks to encourage a person who has witnessed or has knowledge of the commission of a crime to testify before a court or quasijudicial body, or before an investigating authority, by protecting him from reprisals and from economic dislocation.”

The WPP has a P195.7-million budget for this year, up from P184.6 million in 2013, according to the Department of Budget and Management.

Citing the courts’ insufficient resources, Arellano said witnesses could be subjected to “intimidation and suppression” if taken from the DOJ’s supervision, resulting in “failed prosecutions” of cases.

Cornerstones 

The prosecutor general also cited the importance of witnesses as “cornerstones of successful criminal justice systems.

“In a society where the use of forensic evidence is at its infancy, we prosecutors rely on our witnesses’ ability to recall and relate relevant information essential to the successful prosecution of cases,” he said.

For these reasons, Arellano asked the lawmakers to judiciously evaluate the wisdom of the bill.

“We at the NPS hope that our legislators would continue to allow us to provide security and support to our witnesses, in facilitating their ability to give the kind of testimony required for the maintenance of the rule of law,” he said.

Weaken DOJ powers 

Lawyer-academician Abraham Espejo also expressed opposition to the bill seeking to transfer the WPP to the courts, saying that such a move would “immensely weaken” the DOJ.

“Obviously, if the WPP is stripped off the DOJ, it would immensely weaken and affect its exercise of investigative powers and case buildup in the prompt filing and prosecution of offenses in court,” Espejo said in a statement.

Espejo, dean of the New Era University College of Law, said that instead of being transferred to the regular courts, the WPP under the DOJ should be enhanced.

He said the WPP bolstered the justice department’s investigative powers to swiftly act on grave cases through the cooperation of a vital witness or witnesses with personal knowledge of a crime in exchange for guaranteed immunity under the law.

“In granting immunity, a distinction should be made, either the same is granted before and during the investigation and case buildup or after filing the information in court. If the immunity is granted before the filing of the case, it is the sole prerogative of the DOJ who should be admitted to the program after the required evaluation and determination of the qualifications of the vital witness,” he said.

“However, if the case has already been filed in court, the grant of immunity and admission into the program is only recommendatory on the part of the government prosecutors, which is subject to the approval of the court where the case was filed,” Espejo added.