THE Department of Justice (DOJ) on Tuesday said that contractors Pacifico “Curlee” Discaya II and his wife Cezarah refused to cooperate with ongoing investigations and did not apply for witness protection.
The couple was granted the status of “protected witnesses” in late 2025 to provide them with security while under government evaluation.
However, DOJ spokesman Polo Martinez said the Discayas’ failure to complete the process under the Witness Protection Program (WPP) barred them from being admitted as state witnesses.
“While the Discayas initially approached the DOJ with leads, the process was never formalized, and they did not follow through to cooperate fully with the department,” Martinez said.
He said WPP participation requires voluntary submission of comprehensive information and full cooperation with prosecutors. Without fulfilling these requirements, individuals cannot be considered state witnesses.
By contrast, several former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) officials — including former undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, Henry Alcantara, and Engineer Gerard Opulencia — have been provisionally admitted as state witnesses.
Engineers Bryce Hernandez and JP Mendoza have applied for WPP status but were not admitted.
The DOJ defended its decision amid public scrutiny, given that some witnesses were previously involved in handling large sums of public funds allegedly misused for personal expenses, including luxury cars, gambling, and kickbacks. Critics have questioned why private citizens such as the Discayas, who initially provided leads, were not accepted as witnesses.
“The application process begins with voluntary submission of data and willingness to testify fully. The Discayas never returned to complete this process,” Martinez said.
He emphasized that the selection of witnesses is guided strictly by the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit law.
“The panel found that these individuals qualified the most in terms of their ability to corroborate other witnesses and evidence the DOJ has,” Martinez said, adding that specific details of why they were chosen cannot be disclosed due to confidentiality provisions under Section 7 of the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit law.
The DOJ said that immunity granted to state witnesses is strictly limited to cases directly related to the flood control anomalies for which they provide testimony.
“The memorandum of agreement executed with the WPP outlines the conditions and commitments they must fulfill before immunity applies. It is not blanket immunity,” Martinez said.
He added that the flood control anomalies are “complex and compartmentalized,” noting that individuals involved in one phase of the scheme cannot necessarily testify about other phases.
“Our task is to determine which witnesses have sufficient knowledge to tie the whole scheme together and point to bigger fish,” he said, noting the goal is to implicate higher-ranking figures beyond the currently admitted witnesses.
Martinez said that Bernardo, Alcantara, and Opulencia are considered “big fish” within the DPWH system because they possess knowledge of specific compartments of the anomalous scheme. He added that linking fragmented information from different individuals remains one of the DOJ’s main challenges in pursuing accountability.