Why is Senator Rodante Marcoleta in such a hurry to admit the couple at the center of the Flood Control Scam, Curlee and Sarah Discaya, as state witnesses?
Even after being replaced as chair of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee following the recent Senate shuffle, Marcoleta remained firm that the Discaya couple – one the contractors who bagged the most number of government flood control projects – be admitted into the Witness Protection Program (WPP).
The neophyte senator even pushed the new Senate President, Tito Sotto, to sign a written request to the Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking the couple’s admission into the WPP, which was rejected. In denying Marcoleta’s request, Sotto asked: “Have the Discayas already completed their testimony?“
It is a fair question – after all, the Discayas had only appeared before the Blue Ribbon Committee twice. Their first appearance on September 1 was largely defensive, with both denying any irregularities in the projects they had handled.
But their second appearance, on September 8, was a bombshell. This time, Curlee and Sarah Discaya admitted to rigged bidding, overpriced projects, and hefty kickbacks to politicians – going so far as to name personalities who received such payments.
The list of names the Discayas bared was sensational and implicated well-known figures in both the House of Representatives and other high-ranking bureaucrats. Strikingly absent from their list, however, were any members of the Senate.
Such pronouncement may lead one to assume that senators are innocent in this corruption scandal, except the Discayas’ testimony was shattered the following day when another witness – Brice Hernandez, an assistant district engineer in Bulacan – testified at the House of Representatives and named two senators: Jinggoy Estrada and Joel Villanueva; of receiving kickbacks from anomalous public works projects themselves.
It is possible that Hernandez falsely implicated the two senators in the scandal. Alternatively, the Discayas may have deliberately omitted any mention of senators in their testimony – or they may simply be unaware of such involvement.
Either way, the divergence between Hernandez’s account and the Discayas’ statements merits further investigation and scrutiny of each witness before either can be considered credible candidates for state witness status.
Additional scrutiny is especially necessary considering that the prospective state witness is required give a complete, truthful, and detailed account of everything they know about the crime, under Republic Act 6981. In plain terms, the witness must tell the whole truth and not be selective in who they implicate in the crime.
It is also telling how the Discayas’ testimony makes no mention of their transactions during the administration of former president Rodrigo Duterte. While the couple spoke freely about their dealings during the Arroyo, Aquino, and current Marcos Jr. administrations, they were notably evasive when pressed about projects carried out between 2016 and 2022.
Yet data gathered by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) revealed that the Discayas bagged the highest amount of government contracts during the Duterte administration. Even more staggering, the Discaya-owned companies saw an eleven-fold jump in profits within two years – from recording a net revenue of ₱99.25 million in 2016, soaring to a profit of ₱12 billion in 2018.
The years mentioned fall during the time of President Rodrigo Duterte, a timeline that the Discayas have conveniently forgotten when pressed by House members. It is extremely unlikely that nothing remarkable happened during those six years, not only because the Discayas were the top earning contractors from government projects but even more so, because the spike in their profits was extraordinary itself.
The mere fact that the Discayas are seemingly refusing to bare what they know under the Duterte regime should disqualify them from being considered state witnesses alone. But an even more compelling argument against the proposition is on what exactly becoming state witnesses will entail for the couple, should they be successful.
Partly why the Discayas have earned the ire of the Filipino public is because of how they boasted their lavish lifestyle on social media and other features on them. In one Youtube feature on the couple, it was revealed that they own as many as 40 luxury vehicles.
The PCIJ reported that in the last three years alone, the couple bagged ₱31 billion in government contracts; with the cut they receive from each project, it can be surmised that the sum the Discayas siphoned off those public works projects are astronomical.
Knowing that, can we conscionably hand the Discayas more privileges? Filipino taxpayers will shoulder the living costs of state witnesses, including medical and accommodation costs where needed. Physical protection will also be afforded to prospective state witnesses.
Perhaps most egregious of all, should the Discayas be admitted as state witnesses it would also discharge the couple from criminal liability. This is perhaps the aspect of admitting the couple into the WPP that escapes most Filipinos, and the one that will drive the populace to a mass uprising comparable to the People Power Revolution.
Given how much the Discayas benefited from the flood control scam, as well as their reluctance to bare everything they know about the scandal, admitting them as state witnesses shouldn’t even be a consideration. Sen. Marcoleta’s insistence on turning them into state witnesses, as well as his impatience in doing so, should also warrant suspicion and perhaps, a separate investigation itself.