Senator Marcoleta Faces Backlash Over Proposal to Shield Alleged Corrupt Officials at Public Expense

Senator Rodante Marcoleta has come under intense scrutiny for pushing a controversial interpretation of the law that could grant government-paid security to the Discaya couple—individuals accused of orchestrating massive corruption involving billions of pesos from ghost flood control initiatives, substandard infrastructure, and poorly constructed government facilities. Critics argue that this move essentially enables alleged plunderers to profit from their ill-gotten gains while ordinary Filipinos suffer the consequences.

"If such reasoning prevails, it sends a dangerous message: commit large-scale theft, and the State will safeguard your luxurious lifestyle using taxpayers’ money," an analyst said. This stance starkly contrasts with the public’s experience, as many families continue to endure devastation caused by floods and infrastructure failures linked to the accused parties’ purported misdeeds.

Senator Tito Sotto strongly condemned the proposal, emphasizing that the Discayas, reportedly affluent enough to afford luxury vehicles and private security, do not require government protection. Instead, they call for genuine accountability and restitution for the billions allegedly stolen. "They must repay what was taken and not rely on legal technicalities to evade responsibility," Sotto told lawmakers.

Marcoleta’s legal argument hinges on a narrow reading of Republic Act 6981, asserting that it does not mandate restitution as a condition for witness protection. However, many lawmakers view this as a moral affront, misusing the law to shield those who have contributed to widespread public suffering rather than protecting those genuinely risking their safety to reveal the truth.

Opponents highlight that the Discayas’ testimony appears selective, focusing only on events since 2022 and omitting crucial periods when the alleged corruption was allegedly rampant. As Senator Pangilinan remarked, "We deserve full disclosure, not partial confessions."

This debate underscores a broader conflict between justice and impunity. Advocates for reform warn against state-funded "immunity" for billionaires accused of plunder, especially as ordinary citizens grapple with the fallout—flooded communities, destroyed livelihoods, and lost lives.

Concluding the discourse, critics demanded a halt to what they describe as "a perversion of justice." They argue that if the Discayas genuinely face threats, they should rely on their own resources for security rather than burden the public, who continue to struggle with the consequences of alleged corruption.

In summary, this controversy spotlights the urgent need for accountability and the rejection of policies perceived to favor the wealthy at the expense of the Filipino people’s welfare and trust in governance.