News organizations reported today that about One Hundred Fifty Million Pesos was found in the bank accounts of plunder state witness Ben Hur Luy — to which the DOJ state prosecutor said this had not been proven and in any case Ben Hur is immune from prosecution under the Witness Protection Program. Not so fast, and not too cavalierly – it’s One Hundred Fifty Million Pesos apparently from pork barrel, too. The Rules of Court on the discharge of a state witness provide for immunity from prosecution for the crime for which the state witness is charged then discharged. In this case, Ben Hur Luy was discharged for the plunder cases filed against Enrile, Jinggoy, Bong Revilla, et al. He has immunity only for criminal prosecution for the criminal acts that he is testifying on. Nothing more.
It is not a blanket immunity for all kinds of criminal or civil actions for all kinds of acts he may have committed – but only immunity for the criminal acts upon which he is testifying (under the Rules of Court provision on immunity of a state witness).
HOWEVER, the Witness Protection Program may provide for immunity from forfeiture proceedings for ill-gotten wealth arising from criminal transactions that he is testifying on – immoral, maybe, legal, yes (it is condoned and allowed if it is the only way of convicting the masterminds and the state witness does not appear to be the most guilty)
The terms of his WPP contract should be examined and strictly construed, in favor of the public interest. Whether or not Ben Hur Luy has immunity from prosecution or forfeiture of the one hundred fifty million pesos of unexplained wealth depends on:
1.the terms of his WPP contract;
2. the nature of those funds and
3.the source of those funds.
Were those funds sourced from the transactions on which he testified (the Enrile, Jinggoy, Bong Revilla, et al cases)? ….. Or did those funds come from other pork barrel transactions? Look at the paper trail. Am I splitting hairs? It’s one hundred fifty million pesos in unexplained wealth, at best. The terms of his discharge as state witness, his WPP contract, and the paper trail of the one hundred fifty million pesos should be examined.
Unless JokoWi (Indonesian President Joko Widodo) and the Indonesian government believe that Mary Jane Veloso is a one-woman international drug syndicate, or that she is the queen and ringleader of a global network of drug traffickers, refusing to use her as witness to bust the drug ring that ensnared her does not make any legal, political, moral sense, or resemble any kind of logic. The Indonesian government had been informed by the Philippine government (thru President Aquino) this morning that the recruiter who inveigled Mary Jane Veloso to carry the suitcase with the heroin embedded and hidden in a sewn compartment, was now in custody. The custodial investigation of this illegal recruiter leads to at least four more persons-of-interest in the inner layer of the drug ring. The Philippine government and the Indonesian government can even enter into a bilateral agreement for the sharing of information on evidence on this matter and for prosecutorial cooperation. Yet, the Indon government refuses to pay any kind of attention. Even from the point of view of criminal law and law enforcement procedure, using Mary Jane Veloso as witness would yield more useful and admissible evidence that could lead to the inner layer of the drug conspiracy. Executing her now closes that door forever. Unless that is the intent of the Indon government: To forever seal the door to the possibility of identifying the operators of this drug trafficking syndicate. The senselessness of this strategy on the part of the JokoWi government (killing the unwitting “courier” when she has information on her “recruiters” and when one of her recruiters is now in custody — and forever closing the door that leads to the inner layer of the drug syndicate) puts in doubt the sincerity of the Jokowi administration in dealing with the drug menace.
