Erwin Tulfo clarifies 'bending the law' remark amid WPP debate
Sen. Erwin Tulfo provided more clarity on his remark about "bending the law" to recover ill-gotten assets during discussions on the anomalous flood-control projects.
Speaking with reporters, Tulfo elaborated further on his remark and admitted that he misspoke after emotions got the better of him.
"If you're really in good faith, gusto mong tumulong sa investigation, why not sagad-sagarin mo na? Marami naglabasan sa social media kahapon na nabanatan tayo. Siguro, it was just born out of anger na I said na bend the law to please the people," he said.
"What I meant was, bend the law for humanitarian reasons. Kasi when you say bend the law, you enforce the law because of flexibility atsaka for humanitarian reasons. Pero, I didn't say we have to break the law, violate the law. I didn't mean that," he added.
Tulfo said that when it comes to the issue of returning the ill-gotten assets from corrupt contractors and officials, he wondered if it was possible to set aside the law for the moment.
"Kasi ang sinasabi, we have to follow the due process. Pero sinasabi ko, baka pwede hindi. Kagaya ng sinasabi ni Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, baka voluntary na lang nila i-surrender, hindi na tayo dadaan sa korte," he said.
He went on to cite how the Malacañang agrees with this in that they believe that the witnesses seeking state protection should first return any ill-gotten wealth.
Tulfo made the remark on Tuesday after fellow senator Rodante Marcoleta got into a heated debate with Remulla.
Remulla stated that while restitution or the return of illegally acquired funds is typically ordered by the court, asking Witness Protection Program applicants to return it before being qualified is a test of good faith.
"Ang pagbabalik ng pera, 'yan po ay inuutos ng korte. Pero para makita po natin ang good faith ng isang testigo, isang tanong po 'yan na binibigay natin sa kanila. Kasi kung gusto po nila maprotektahan dapat, 'yung full good faith, isasauli talaga nila," he said.
"'Yun po 'yung isang test natin. Wala po 'yan sa patakaran, pero it's a test po kung reliable po 'yung witness or hindi," he added.
This did not sit well with Marcoleta, who questioned if Remulla was trying to amend the law and warned that he could be disbarred over his stance.
"Papaano mo sasabihin na magre-restitute ang isang tao, meron na bang findings magkano ang ire-restitute and how it can be restituted? Nag-a-apply pa lang e. Huwag po ninyong babaguhin ang requisite ng batas," the senator said.
However, Tulfo agreed with Remulla, saying that "sometimes you have to bend the law to be able to please the people."
"Mas mataas po ang taongbayan sa batas," he added.
The debate comes as Sarah and Curlee Discaya—the couple whose construction firms won billions of pesos of contracts over the years from the Department of Public Works and Highways—told senators they're willing to become state witnesses. However, suspicions of inconsistencies and perceived lack of the meatiest information have led their qualification to be questioned.