MANILA, Philippines — Curlee Discaya, a contractor entangled in the ongoing flood control probe, has sparked public debate by claiming that he and his wife, Sarah Discaya, were unfairly treated in relation to restitution requirements tied to the Witness Protection Program (WPP). In a recent statement, Curlee asserted, “It feels like we were the ones robbed,” emphasizing that they could not return any money as part of the process. His comments came amid questions from Sen. Rodante Marcoleta regarding whether restitution is a prerequisite for admission into the WPP.

However, Prosecutor General Dong Fadullon clarified that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has not demanded immediate repayment from the Discayas. Instead, Fadullon explained that the primary concern is to assess the value and credibility of the information they can provide. Only after evaluating their cooperation would restitution or other considerations for state protection be discussed. He also highlighted that the Discayas have not coordinated with the DOJ, which has stalled the processing of their application into the WPP.

This incident underscores the delicate balance between law enforcement procedures and public perception. Restitution, in theory, is meant to repair harm caused by alleged wrongdoing. Yet, when misunderstood, it can fuel narratives of injustice, particularly when high-profile figures are involved. The case raises broader questions about transparency and communication in legal processes, and whether the public fully understands how programs like the WPP operate.

While the DOJ aims to protect witnesses and ensure accountability, Curlee Discaya’s remarks reflect a perception gap: how can legal systems enforce restitution or cooperation without appearing coercive? Are restitution demands being misinterpreted, or is there a deeper issue in how witness protection procedures are communicated? (Larawan: Facebook)