PROTECTION OF WITNESSES OF THE“CONGRESSIONAL PORK BARREL SCAM”
Cristina Belmonte Hernandez*

I. OVERVIEW OF THE PORK-BARREL SCAM1
One of the highly publicized and most talked about controversies affecting thePhilippine government is the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam, commonly
known as the “Pork Barrel Scam”. The news about the scam broke in 2014, during theadministration of then President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino, III. The arrest of Ms. Janet Lim
Napoles as the alleged “Pork Barrel Queen” was a boost to the Aquino administration’sprincipal advocacy of “Matuwid Na Daan”2.
The scam is basically about legislators conspiring with other government officials andprivate entities to divert public funds for their own use and benefit. Driven by greed, theprincipal players in the scam were able to devise a scheme where the fictitious transactions of
the concerned officials and agencies appeared to be as legitimate undertakings.
The wheel of deception starts from the negotiation between the legislator and Ms.
Napoles on the utilization of the former’s PDAF allocation. The two will agree on a list ofprojects, the specific implementing agency through which the funds will be coursed, the project
cost and the commission or “kick-back” that the legislator will eventually receive. The amountof commission ranges between 40%-60% of the project cost or the amount stated in orderreleasing the fund. After negotiation, Ms. Napoles will now instruct her trusted employee toprepare the so-called project listing which will be adopted by the legislator in requesting theimmediate release of his PDAF allocation. The Appropriations Committee in the House ofRepresentative will endorse said request to the Budget Department who will soon issue thecorresponding allotment release order addressed to the chosen implementing agency. The Headof the latter, in exchange for a ten percent (10%) share in the project cost, will subsequently
release the check to the fake NGO and the proceeds will thereafter be immediately withdrawn.
Ultimately, only the Congressman, Ms. Napoles and their co-conspirators benefitted
from the disbursement drawn from the legislator’s Priority Development Assistance Fundallocation. Not a single centavo was spent for the improvement of the legislative district of theCongressman.
II. PENDING CASES IN THE ANTI-GRAFT COURTThe Office of the Ombudsman, filed cases against three (3) senators of the Republic
and several other members of the House of Representatives, commonly known as aAssistant Special Prosecutor II under the Office of the Special Prosecutor, Office of the Ombudsman, Philippines.
The narration of the scheme was culled from the Joint Resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman, dated 26
September 2014, finding probable cause for violation of Section 3 (e) & Section 4 (b) both of Republic Act No.
3019, Malversation, Direct Bribery and Corruption of Public Official under the Revised Penal Code2
Translated to mean “straight governance”*1－ 152 －Congressman. Charges were also filed against officials and employees of other government
agencies and private individuals who conspired with the named legislator. This paper will cite
the malversation, violation of the anti-graft law and bribery cases filed against a Congressmanfrom the lone district of Cagayan de Oro which is now pending trial with the anti-graft courtof the Philippines known as the Sandiganbayan. The writer is a member of the panel ofprosecutors handling the said case.
During his term as a Congressman of the lone district of Cagayan de Oro, a province
located in the northern part of the Mindanao region, the accused legislator continuously
endorsed the implementation of his PDAF-funded livelihood projects to the fake NGO
controlled by Ms. Napoles. In 2007, he consented to course his PDAF allocation, with a total
amount of Thirty Million Pesos (P30,000,000.00), through an implementing agency called theTechnology Resource Center 3 (TRC). He also endorsed to TRC, a non-governmentalorganization, owned and controlled by Ms. Napoles known as Countrywide Agri and Rural
Economic Development (CARED) Foundation, as the entity that would allegedly implement
the livelihood projects in his district. CARED was supposed to conduct trainings and deliverfarm implements and livelihood materials to identified beneficiaries. Unfortunately, nodeliveries were made and no trainings were ever conducted.
The Congressman received an accumulated sum of about Twenty Million Eight
Hundred Forty-Three Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Pesos (P20,843,750.00) charged to his
PDAF allocation in the years 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.
The case is still in the trial stage. The prosecution already presented witnesses from theDepartment of Budget and Management to confirm the release of the fund charged to the PDAF
allocation of the Congressman as well as witnesses from the Commission on Audit to attest tothe findings and result of the fraud audit conducted in the utilization of the PDAF. The witness
on deck is the former finance officer and trusted employee of the NGO who testified on thedetails of the fraudulent scheme.
III. THE WHISTLE-BLOWERS
By chance, the scam was exposed when an employee of the fake NGO sought help fromlaw enforcers as he was illegally detained by Ms. Napoles. The case is actually for illegal
detention but since the reason for the detention is the employee’s familiarity with the workingsof the NGO then a disclosure about the scam was inevitable. The individuals involved in thePDAF scam would not have been brought to courts had it not for this employee who blew thewhistle against Ms. Janet Lim Napoles and her cohorts.
The detained employee is a close relative of Ms. Napoles herself and the former financeofficer of JLN Corporation, a company owned by Ms. Napoles. His liberty was restrained, andhe was detained for three (3) months on mere suspicion that he was already making his own
hidden transaction with the legislators. Ms. Napoles also feared that since he is a trusted
employee and knows almost everything about the workings of the NGO then he might alreadydisclose vital information prejudicial to the interest of Ms. Napoles.
Other whistle-blowers include former female employees of Ms. Napoles whose tasks
involved facilitating the registration of the fake NGOs and securing its government licenses
3

The agency is no longer functioning and was dissolved with the advent of the PDAF controversy.

－ 153 －

and permits, deposit and cashing of checks as well as fabricating needed documents to expedite
the release of the PDAF allocations.
The former finance officer categorically claimed that the Congressman from Cagayan
de Oro actually received money from Ms. Napoles representing his share of the fund as
previously agreed upon. Unlike the other legislators where the bribe money was coursed
through a middleman, the Congressman from Cagayan de Oro personally received in cash, atthe very office of JLN Corporation, his share of the loot.
IV. WITNESS PROTECTION
After going against the interest and giving damaging statements against their former
employer, naturally, the whistle-blowers were separated from their usual gainful employment.
Worst, there is now a continuing threat to their lives and those of their respective families.
Their sources of income became limited and their means would not suffice to secure their own
safety. Since the whistle-blowers will stand as material witnesses in the controversial PDAF
scam, then the Philippine government must carry the burden of ensuring their continued safetyand availability.
On 24 April 1991, the Philippine Congress approved the passage of Republic Act. No.
6981, otherwise known as the “Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act”. The law assigned
the implementation of the witness protection, security and benefit programme to theDepartment of Justice (herein referred to as the Department).
The Department’s Witness Protection Program (herein referred to as the Program)4
seeks to encourage a person who has witnessed or has knowledge of the commission of a crime
to testify before a court or quasi-judicial body, or before an investigating authority, byprotecting him from reprisals and from economic dislocation. The benefits given to thewitnesses who are admitted to the programme include the following:
••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

4Security protection and escort services
Immunity from criminal prosecution and not to be subjected to any
penalty or forfeiture for any transaction, matter or thing concerning hiscompelled testimony or books, documents or writings produced.
Secure housing
Assistance in obtaining a livelihood
Reasonable travelling expenses and subsistence allowance while acting
as a witness
Free medical treatment, hospitalization and medicine for any injury orillness incurred or suffered while acting as a witness.
Burial benefits of not less than Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) if thewitness is killed because of his participation in the Program
Free education from primary to college level for the minor or dependent
children of a witness who dies or is permanently incapacitated
Non-removal or demotion at work because of absences due to his being
a witness and payment of full salary or wage while as acting as witness.

Data about the programme is culled from the official website of the Department of Justice－ 154 －In return, the witness will sign a Memorandum of Agreement setting forth hisresponsibilities which include the following5:
••
•
•
•
•

To testify before and provide information to all appropriate law
enforcement officials concerning all appropriate proceedings inconnection with or arising from the activities involved in the offence
chargedTo avoid the commission of a crime
To take all necessary precautions to avoid detection by others of the fact
concerning the protection provided him under the law
To comply with legal obligations and civil judgements against him
To cooperate with respect to all reasonable requests of officers andemployees of the Government who are providing protection under thelaw
To regularly inform the appropriate programme official of his currentactivities and address.

Given that the former employees of Ms. Napoles actually participated in thecommission of the scam and there is absolute necessity for their testimonies, the whistleblowers applied for and were actually admitted, as state witnesses, to the Witness Protection
Program of the Department of Justice.
V. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT
The prosecution of the Malversation, Direct Bribery and Graft cases filed against theCongressman from Cagayan de Oro are being handled by the Office of the Special Prosecutor,
the prosecutorial arm of the Office of the Ombudsman. A five-man panel consisting of bothsenior and junior prosecutors was created immediately after the Information was filed in theanti-graft court on 5 February 2015. As previously mentioned, among the witnesses to bepresented at the trial of the case are the former employees, turned whistle-blowers, of JLN
Corporation who took an active part in facilitating the unlawful disbursement of the PDAF
allocation.
The Office of the Ombudsman has no concrete programme that extends assistance toits own witnesses comparable to that of the Department of Justice. Ironically, the safety andsecurity of the prosecution witnesses are provided for by another agency which is theDepartment of Justice and not directly by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Whenever there is a need to call them to testify in court then a written request, throughthe issuance of a Subpoena Ad Testificandum, must first be addressed to the Program Directorof the Witness Protection Program. The same protocol applies when said witnesses are being
called even for just the conduct of case conferences prior to the scheduled appearances in court.
Fortunately, there has never been an instance where the Department of Justice failed to present
the whistle-blowers in their custody whenever requested by the special prosecutors from theOffice of the Ombudsman.

5Republic Act No. 6981, Section 5－ 155 －VI. THE VALUE OF COOPERATIONWitness protection may be a limiting factor in the successful prosecution of thecongressional “pork-barrel” scam. The prosecution panel is always faced with the challenge ofbringing the whistle-blowers to court, especially since their material witnesses are in thecustody of another agency of the government.
The dynamics between the Office of the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice,particularly on the safety and security of witnesses, proved to be an effective means in ensuring
the availability of the whistle-blowers. Proper coordination between the two agencies
facilitated the whistle-blower’s consistent attendance in the scheduled court hearings.
In taking the witness stand, the whistle-blowers were able to clearly narrate to themagistrates of the court and to the listening public in general how the grand conspiracy todefraud the government was executed. Their testimonies confirmed that only the privileged
few benefitted from the much-needed resources of the government. More importantly, thewhistle-blowers strengthen the probability of conviction of all those involved in the scam.
The Office of the Ombudsman may not have all the resources it needs to fulfill its
mandate to curb corruption in government. This may also be true for the Department of Justice.
Nevertheless, the support given by one agency to the other helps to address the lingering
problem of the scarcity of each agency’s resources. Indeed, the collaboration of various
government agencies and active cooperation of the witnesses are indispensable in thegovernment’s fight against corruption.
VII.

CONCLUDING STATEMENT

The prosecution of the Priority Development Assistance Fund scam can be likened tothe biblical battle of David and Goliath. To testify against the highly influential and powerfulindividuals is like David throwing a stone at the mighty Goliath. The whistle-blowers may
appear to be small like David but with the protection given by the government then they canstand taller than Goliath.

－ 156 －