THERE is much reason to believe that Rodente Marcoleta, the pretentious lawmaker who always projects he knows his law but actually does not, is a fraud. No wonder, legal giants like Adolf Azcuna and Antonio Carpio, two retired magistrates of the Supreme Court, look down on him to the point of ridiculing him publicly.
Just to continue the refutation of Rodente’s assertion that there is no law that requires the Discayas to return their stashed ill-gotten wealth (or loot) in exchange for their acceptance in the Witness Protection Program (WPP). In brief, Rodente wanted state protection ot the Discayas while they keep their loot. Rodente sounded like the Discayas’ lawyer. His colleagues in the Senate noticed it and they wee cold to his advances.
It is doubted if Rodente knows this Latin sentence: Nemo cum alterius detrimento locupletari potest. This is the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Literally, it means a person shall not be allowed to profit or enrich himself inequitably at another’s expense. Lawyers said there is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice , equity and good conscience ( Republic vs. Ballocanog ( G.R. No, 163794 November 28, 2008).
Indeed, the Supreme Court said that the rule against unjust enrichment ” is basic in every legal system” and that “even in the absence of a statute”, it must be followed “under the general principle that one person may not enrich himself at the expense of another.” This is contained in the landmark jurisprudence in Pacific Merchandising vs. Consolacion Insurance G.R. No. L-30204, Oct. 29, 1976. Does Rodente understand this? Obviously, the Sad Sack does not know this. He does not read, which is a first requirement for a lawyer.
Moreover, Rodente does not have knowledge and understand standing of customary law. They are not codified unlike the law that many people know and understand but everybody follows and observe them because it is the right thing to do. His limited knowledge and understanding of what constitutes law is Rodente’s biggest issue and problem.
Because the corrupt Discayas wanted to become state witnesses, as explained by their de facto lawyer, Rodente Marcoleta, they will enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and a contract follows, lawyers said. Hence another source of obligation namely: Contract under Article 1157 of the Civil Code. Consequently, according to Article 1306 of the Civil Code: “The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.”
If an applicant agree and sign a MOA that requires the return of their loot, they are compelled to follow the return of the loot. This is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy, lawyers said.
Hindi mandatory requisite ang may court proceeding muna bago mag-restitution. Sabi ng batas mag-comply sa “legal obligations and civil judgment”. Magkahiwalay ang legal obligation sa civil judgment”. The “and” between legal obligation and civil judgment means that any of the two enumerated can be the basis of the compliance. Sabi rin ng batas “Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that moment the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law.” ( Article 1315, Civil Code).
Accordingly, the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) can provide that , prior to being extended protection, the applicants,upon the signing of the MOA, must COMPLY WITH THEIR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS to return what they have received or given inequitably, against good conscience and,or without just or legal grounds as a result of the flood program scandal.
Justice Secretary Remulla was correct, not only moral obligation, but also legal, lawyers said.
Let’s lay down some basic facts: the contractors came into possession of govt funds without legal basis or without valid consideration, as their flood control projects were either non-existent, substandard or overpriced. The district engineers admitted rigging the biddings. Contractors admitted the biddings were rigged. Hence, the contractors cannot lawfully hold on to the money the government paid them. Hence, they must return without delay the money. Otherwise the contractors will be unjustly enriched, lawyers said.
Article 22 of the Civil Code states: “Every person who, through an act or performance by another or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.”
Lawyers also cited Sec. 5 (d) of the Witness Protection Law requiring the person accepted as a state witness “to comply with legal obligations and civil judgments against him.” The return of government money unjustly or unlawfully obtained is a legal obligation. There is no need for a court order if the govt and the witness can amicably agree on the amount.
To wait for the finality of a civil judgment will take years or even decades. By that time the assets of the witness would have been dissipated. These are among the things Rodente Marcoleta has a hard time understanding.
Equally important, the DOJ must absolutely require the state witness applicant to return the proceeds of the crime as a vital condition for being a state witness because once the state witness has been compelled to testify, he could no longer be required to return the money he unlawfully took from the government, lawyer said.
The Witness Protection Law expressly states the state witness “cannot be subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for any transaction, matter or thing concerning his compelled testimony.”
Section 14 of the Witness Protection Law (RA 6971) expressly provides: “Compelled Testimony. – Any Witness admitted into the Program pursuant to Sections 3 and 10 of this Act cannot refuse to testify or give evidence or produce books, documents, records or writings necessary for the prosecution of the offense or offenses for which he has been admitted into the Program on the ground of the constitutional right against self-incrimination but he shall enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution and cannot be subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for any transaction, matter or thing concerning his compelled testimony or books, documents, records and writings produced.”
The perpetrators of the biggest corruption scandal in Philippine history, if accepted as state witnesses, will be laughing all the way to the bank with their billions of stolen money stolen without the legal obligation of restitution. That would be the perfect crime of plunder.
