The admission of Janet Napoles into the Witness Protection Program (WPP) even if “provisional” is utterly premature because of the absence of a prior mandatory determination that she is qualified to be discharged from her pending plunder cases to become a state witness.

This procedure is required by Section 10 of R.A. 6981 in relation to Section 17 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court on criminal procedure.

If the “affidavit” of Napoles supporting her admission as a witness under the WPP is still being assessed according to Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre and Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque, why give her protective custody under the WPP as early as February 27, 2018 before the requisite process is completed?

Sec. 10 of RA 6981 provides that “any person who has participated in the commission of a crime” in order to become a state witness for admission into the WPP must “not appear to be the most guilty”.

Since Napoles is accused before the Sandiganbayan as the mastermind of the multi-billion peso pork barrel scam, she appears to be the most guilty, disqualifying her from becoming a state witness.

Sec. 17 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that “upon motion of the prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses for the State” when the court is satisfied that the said accused “does not appear to be the most guilty”, among other prerequisites.

Under the said Rule, the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman, who is prosecuting Napoles, will preliminarily determine that Napoles is qualified to be a government witness, and it is the Sandiganbayan where her plunder cases are pending which has the jurisdiction to grant her discharge as a state witness.

In either case, the Secretary of Justice or the Director of the WPP has no role or authority.

The discharge of an accused operates as an acquittal pursuant to Section 18 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court and constitutes immunity from criminal prosecution under the “Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act” (R.A. 6981).

From being the principal accused in the “mother of all scams”, Napoles is on the verge of staging a “great escape” with the consent of the Department of Justice.

EDCEL C. LAGMAN