Tensions have escalated in a Senate hearing after Senator Rodante Marcoleta once again slammed the Department of Justice (DOJ) for its alleged lack of fairness and strict adherence to the law. In front of DOJ officials, the senator pointed out that the agency seems to be straying from its primary role as an advocate of justice — especially when it comes to issues of the witness protection program and decisions related to international courts.

From the very beginning of the hearing, Marcoleta’s tone was clear: he wanted to know how ordinary Filipinos could understand the DOJ’s boasted “accomplishments.” “If an ordinary person were listening, would they understand how these programs are helping them?” the senator asked. “Is it safer for them to walk at night now? Is the community more peaceful because of the DOJ’s actions?”

As the officials gave their presentations, Marcoleta’s objections gradually intensified. One of the main issues discussed was the Witness Protection Program (WPP) process — specifically the issue of “restitution” or the return of money before a person can be admitted to the program. The DOJ insisted that it is good policy to first ensure that there is payment or recovery of seized assets before a witness is fully granted protection. However, Marcoleta was quick to counter this.

“What do you mean by ‘good policy’? That’s not in the law!” Marcoleta boldly replied. “How can you add a requirement to a law that is clearly written? Isn’t it the DOJ’s job to comply, not to invent conditions?”

The senator further pointed out that Section 10 of the law clearly states that no “restitution” is required before entering the Witness Protection Program. Instead, he said, it can only be discussed in the case being filed and should not be an obstacle to the protection of witnesses who may be able to assist in the investigation. “If the DOJ itself adds a condition that is not in the law, where else will justice go?” Marcoleta added.

Despite the explanations of DOJ officials, especially Undersecretary Jesse Andres, the senator maintained that the agency’s interpretation was wrong. “This is not about your opinion,” Marcoleta insisted. “The law is clear — and if the Department of Justice itself does not understand the basic law, how can we trust it to defend the innocent?”

Another controversial part of the hearing was Marcoleta’s mention of the ICC (International Criminal Court) issue and the role of the former DOJ secretary in allegedly allowing a former president to be brought to the ICC. According to Marcoleta, it is surprising how the DOJ suddenly changed its position — from openly refusing to cooperate with the ICC, to eventually helping. “What changed? Why does the principle seem to be flexible depending on who is sitting?” he asked.

The senator also referred to Republic Act 9851, the law that grants jurisdiction to Philippine courts in cases of crimes against humanity and genocide. He pointed out that the law clearly states that Philippine courts have the capacity to try such cases, so there is no need to turn them over to the ICC. “If we already have a law for this, why do we need to hand it over to a foreigner? Isn’t it clear that we can resolve this on our own soil?” Marcoleta added.

At the end of the heated discussion, the senator called for the DOJ to reflect on the exchange. “Our goal is the same: to hold those who violate the law accountable,” said Marcoleta. “But if the justice agency itself displays confusion and lack of principles, how can we trust that there will be true justice?”

Several senators, including Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian, praised Marcoleta’s goal of clarifying policies that seem to be causing confusion. Gatchalian said the DOJ needs to show not just numbers and statistics, but the concrete impact of their programs on the daily lives of citizens. “Charts and reports are not enough if people don’t feel it,” he added.

Despite the DOJ’s persistence in defending its position, it is clear that many questions still need to be answered — not just about technical processes, but also about a deeper question: is the Department of Justice still adhering to the law? Or is it itself deviating from the path of justice it is supposed to uphold?

Until the last part of the hearing, Marcoleta’s stance remained intact: “The law cannot be twisted just to ‘make people happy.’ The law is the law. If we start twisting it, the word justice will no longer have any meaning.”

This hearing left the public with a burning question — if the very guardian of the law is implicated in its violation, who else can the people look to for true justice?