“It is a recognition that public welfare, not the welfare of thieves, is the supreme law”
Salus populi est suprema lex. The welfare of the people is the supreme law.
This ancient maxim, traced back to Cicero and long embraced in modern Constitutions and jurisprudence, reminds us that every statute, every ruling, every policy must ultimately serve the people, not the powerful few, not the criminals who plunder public funds.
This principle should be the compass in the raging debate between Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla and Senator Rodante Marcoleta over the Witness Protection Program.
The issue boils down to this: Should someone accused of corruption be allowed to enjoy state protection without first making restitution for what was stolen?
Senator Marcoleta says no. His argument is that Republic Act 6981 contains no explicit requirement for restitution. In his view, the law is meant to protect witnesses, period.
On paper this is a safe and literal reading of the statute. But law cannot be read in isolation from justice, and justice cannot be blind to the realities of corruption in this country.
Secretary Remulla, on the other hand, argues that before protection is granted, there must be restitution.
In plain terms, give back what you stole before you ask the State to shield you. It is a recognition that public welfare, not the welfare of thieves, is the supreme law.
Here the public must pay attention. Since time immemorial, we have witnessed one scandal after another involving officials who lived far beyond the means of honest service.
Mansions rise in exclusive villages.
Convoys of imported luxury cars clog gated driveways.
Private helicopters and jets are casually flown to weekend retreats.
Properties are hidden abroad, in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Paris and Madrid.
Penthouse units become cash drop-off points, where billions are piled on billiard tables before being counted and delivered.
Their children? Nepo babies of corruption, flaunting designer brands, jetting off to luxury vacations, posing with Ferraris and Lamborghinis bought with public money.
This stark disparity should outrage us. When crooked politicians flaunt their wealth, it is not just an insult. It is a direct theft of opportunities from ordinary Filipinos who endure rising prices, unreliable public transport, and underfunded hospitals.
We have seen this story before.
In 2012, Janet Lim Napoles shocked the nation with her pork barrel scam, exposing how billions were siphoned through bogus NGOs.
She, too, paraded unexplained wealth while ordinary Filipinos were left scraping by.
Did we ever learn?
Or are we simply allowing the same scheme to repeat itself, dressed up with new faces, new nepo babies, and bigger toys?
How many corrupt presidents have we kicked out in the past, only to see the cycle repeat itself?
At the recent Senate Blue Ribbon hearing, a DPWH official named Senator Jinggoy Estrada and former senator Bong Revilla – both once jailed for corruption cases – along with Senator Joel Villanueva, as being involved in the corruption in flood-control projects.
All three strongly denied the charge.
It is yet another reminder that the cycle never really ends – old names resurface, new ones are added, but the shadow of corruption remains the same.
Imagine the scene: a plunderer walks into the DOJ, applies for witness protection, and gets state funded security escorts while continuing to enjoy his stolen bounty.
The law may not explicitly forbid it, but common sense and public conscience do.
Should the State really prioritize the safety of thieves while the victims, the people, remain unprotected?
That is why Remulla’s stance resonates.
Protection cannot be unconditional.
It must be tied to accountability.
It must demand restitution.
Because if the WPP becomes a loophole where the corrupt hide while clutching their loot, then it ceases to serve the public.
It becomes a shield for the very people it was meant to expose.
The maxim salus populi est suprema lex is not a Latin ornament. It is the heart of democratic governance.
The supreme law is the people’s welfare.
The people will never be served if the corrupt are allowed to keep their mansions, their fleets of cars, their air assets, their overseas houses, and their piles of cash in penthouses, while hiding behind witness protection.
So yes, Marcoleta is technically right that RA 6981 does not spell out restitution.
But Remulla is right where it matters: in the conscience of the law, in the eyes of the people, and in the enduring truth that no legal loophole can justify injustice.
The State must choose whose welfare is supreme: that of the plunderer, or that of the people.
In the end, the choice is clear. Salus populi, not salus magnanakaw.
(Email: ernhil@yahoo.com)
