By Reisha Mae F. Valdez, UC student
There is something unsettling about watching an accused man become the government’s greatest hope.
That is probably why former Public Works Secretary Manuel Bonoan is now being turned into a state witness. Not because he is innocent or deserving of sympathy, but because he may know how the alleged flood control scheme actually worked. It is an uncomfortable decision, yet perhaps an unavoidable one.
For years, Filipinos have been told that those who steal from the people must answer for their crimes. Now, prosecutors are asking the public to accept that one of the accused may be the key to exposing those allegedly higher up the chain. It sounds contradictory. How can justice depend on someone it once charged?
The answer lies in how corruption often operates. It rarely leaves a paper trail. No one writes “kickback” in an official document or signs a memorandum detailing how public money should be divided. Deals are allegedly made behind closed doors, through conversations, favors, and understandings that only those inside the room can fully explain. If the allegations are true, then someone who was part of that system may be the only person capable of revealing how it functioned.
That is what makes Bonoan’s testimony valuable. Not because of his position, but because of what he allegedly witnessed. His testimony could either strengthen the government’s case or expose its weaknesses. Either way, it will shape how this investigation is remembered.
Still, becoming a state witness should never be mistaken for a reward. It should come with a greater responsibility. Every statement must be supported by evidence. Every allegation must withstand scrutiny in court. Otherwise, the government risks replacing one accused official with another without bringing the real architects of the alleged scheme to justice.
The Ombudsman believes Bonoan’s cooperation could help build one of the biggest corruption cases in recent Philippine history. If that is true, then the public deserves more than bold announcements and high-profile press conferences. We deserve a case that survives the courtroom, not just the headlines.
The greater danger is not that Bonoan becomes a state witness. The greater danger is if his testimony fails to hold those who allegedly designed or benefited from the scheme accountable. If he walks free while those with greater responsibility remain untouched, then the decision will look less like a pursuit of justice and more like a negotiated compromise.
Sometimes justice catches the biggest fish by using one already inside the net. But that strategy only succeeds if the net closes on everyone who deserves to be there.
If Bonoan’s testimony truly leads to accountability, then this difficult decision will have served its purpose. If not, it will simply become another reminder that in the Philippines, even corruption has a hierarchy.**
