CARTOONIST George Baker created in 1942 a character “Sad Sack,” who happened to be a hapless soldier who always found himself in an unfortunate situation. Over time, this character has become an idiomatic expression to refer to any person, who is a magnet for misfortune. Sad Sack is an unhappy, unlucky, or even inept character despite having good intentions. He is one, who is always at the losing end, or on the wrong side of history.
Rodente Marcoleta, although elected as senator in the May 12 midterm elections and a senator for only five months, qualifies as the local version of Sad Sack. Confidently articulate to express his views no matter how wrong, shortsighted, bigoted, erratic and laughable, Rodente has found himself many times in several unpalatable situations and circumstances, where he has become the national laughing stock.
Tricky Tsis named him as chair of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, a powerful and influential Senate body that delves into corruption and other malfeasance in government. Rodente, although a neophyte senator, was named by Tricky Tsis in that critical post, reflecting his poor judgment of human character. In due time, Rodente showed his ineptitude and created his own misfortune to become the modern-day Sad Sack. He was replaced by Sen. Ping Lacson in the culmination of a power struggle that led to Tricky Tsis’s ouster and the assumption to the Senate Presidency by Sen. Tito Sotto.
But this is not the point that has made Rodente the Sad Sack of the current Senate. When he was chair of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, Rodente Marcoleta kept on arguing the necessity to accept the corrupt Discaya couple as “state witnesse” on the flood control scandal issue. This was not because the Discayas were the least guilty. On the contrary, they were the most guilty because of the sheer magnitude of their alleged involvement in the scandal.
Rodente had the gall to argue for their acceptance and inclusion under the Witness Protection Program (WPP), which requires the government to spend for their upkeep and security at a time the State runs after those people behind the flood control scam. Rodente said the Discayas deserve to be included in the WPP because “they deserve it.”
Then Justice Secretary and now Ombudsman Boying Remulla shot down what Rodente wanted and argued that it could only be possible if the Discayas would return the loot they collected from those anomalous transactions. Acting as if he was the Discaya’s newly hired lawyer, Rodente argued that no law compels the Discayas to return their loot to make them state witnesses. This was his undoing because he was wrong.
His assertion that there was no law for the restitution of their loot was also pronounced in the Nov. 14 public hearing of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. For instance, Law Dean Mel Sta Maria has propounded the doctrine of unjust enrichment as the basis of the DoJ’s precondition for the Discayas to return the loot before they fall under the Witness Protection Program. (WPP). This doctrine, according to Sta. Maria, a noted public interest lawyer, does not allow self-confessed criminals like the Discayas to enjoy the loot in exchange for state protection.
Rodente was wrong to say that no law exists to require the Discayas to return their loot, or restitution. On the contrary, the law has evolved to become a doctrine in our jurisprudence. Rodente seemingly does not know his law. He was only good at projecting knowledge of the law.
Other lawyers said Remulla, the newly installed Ombudsman, was correct to oppose Rodente’s argument. They cited a provision of Republic Act No. 6981 (Witness Protection Program Law) as a ground to require a witness to return the loot that he received unjustifiably and unconscionably before he could be given the protection under the WPP.
The witness, although admitted to the WPP, could only be automatically given protection when he signs a Memorandum of Agreement based on the provision in the WPP Law, according to lawyers.
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 6981: “BEFORE the witness shall be provided protection under the Act, the witness shall execute a MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT which shall set forth his responsibilities including, among others, xxx to comply with legal obligations and civil judgments.”
Under Article 1157 of the Civil Code, the sources of obligations are: “law, contracts, quasi contracts, delict and quasi-delict.” The “and” between delict and quasi-delict means that any of those enumerated can be the source of obligation, they claimed.
The legal obligation to return money obtained or given without just or legal grounds or as a result of graft and corruption falls under the “LAW.” Article 22 of the Civil Code provides that “every person who through an act of 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.”
Article 23 provides that “even when an act or event causing damage to another’s property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited.”
This is a matter which Rodente Marcoleta denies or refuses to acknowledge.
