The prosecution appears to be asking the Court to accept a rather curious proposition—that the Secretary of Public Works—the official entrusted with ultimate authority over the department—was somehow the least culpable participant in the very scheme allegedly committed under his watch.

That is a difficult proposition to reconcile with both logic and law. A Cabinet Secretary is not a peripheral figure. He is the department’s principal decision-maker. Authority at that level is accompanied by responsibility.

If the alleged corruption reached the Secretary’s office, it stretches logic to its breaking point to argue that he should be transformed from principal accused into the prosecution’s star witness. The law on state witnesses was never intended to reward those who occupied the highest seats of power. It exists to secure testimony from the least guilty participant—not to convert the person at the apex of the chain of command into the government’s most valuable asset.

Justice loses credibility when accountability is inverted. In corruption cases, the ladder of responsibility should be climbed—not conveniently dismantled. To portray the highest-ranking official as the least culpable is not merely counterintuitive—it defies both logic and the very rationale behind the state witness rule.

Sa ato pa, ang pinakadako’g boss mao pa’y pinakagamay’g sala? Murag dili na na hustisya. Scriptwriting na na.