Senator Erwin Tulfo’s recent statement during the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing on the flood control mess — that sometimes you have to “bend the law” to heed the people’s cry for restitution — has drawn both applause and criticism. Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla affirmed his sentiment, but some quarters now warn that such remarks suggest moving outside the Constitution.
In my view, there is no need to bend the law at all. The law itself, through both the Constitution and the Civil Code, already mandates restitution.
Accountability in the flood control mess does not stop with public officials. Even private contractors who enriched themselves from irregular projects are bound by law to return the money. The Civil Code, through Articles 19 and 22, prohibits unjust enrichment, while the Constitution itself (Article II, Section 27) commands the State to take effective measures against graft and corruption. Restitution therefore, is not a bending of the law — it is the law itself at work.
The Civil Code reinforces this duty through two key provisions:
- Article 19: “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.”
- Article 22: “Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.”
Taken together, these make restitution a legal requirement. It is not a technicality, nor a concession to public clamor. It is the natural consequence of unjust enrichment.
When protesters at Luneta shouted “Ibalik ang pera ng bayan,” they were not demanding that the law be ignored or bent. They were, perhaps unknowingly, demanding that the law be faithfully enforced. The people’s voice and the law’s command align perfectly here.
This is why I believe Senator Tulfo’s passion is not at odds with the rule of law. The better framing is this: the law itself already bends toward justice. To demand restitution is not to defy legal principles but to uphold them.
My take is simple: restitution is not just a moral duty, nor is it merely a populist cry. It is a constitutional and legal obligation. There is no conflict between the will of the people and the rule of law on this issue. Both demand the same thing: that what was wrongfully taken from the Filipino people must be returned.
We live in abnormal times when asking to return stolen money is treated as if it were illegal.
Real LexEcon 