There is suspicion that Sen. Marcoleta played a central role in preparing or coaching the Discayas’ sworn statement, or at least cut a deal with them. During the Senate hearings, he was unusually aggressive in pushing for their protection, even drafting a letter himself for the Witness Protection Program (WPP) — something normally reserved for the witness’s lawyer and subject to committee and Senate President approval. He even promised immunity, which raised serious doubts about his real intentions.
The sworn statement itself carried red flags that can’t be ignored. It only covered names from 2022 to 2025, conveniently skipping the Duterte years from 2016 to 2021, even though the Discayas were the number one contractors during that time. The notarization had technical lapses, and their testimonies kept shifting — in the Senate they openly named Romualdez and others, but in the House they suddenly softened their claims. Their demeanor was also telling: confident when Marcoleta was still in power, but visibly shaken once he was ousted as Blue Ribbon Chair.
Here are the points you should be aware of:
-
Selective Timeline: The Discayas’ statement skips 2016–2021, when they thrived under Duterte. Many believe this was intentional to protect him and Bong Go.
-
Suspicious Role of Marcoleta: He drafted the WPP request himself, promised immunity, and pushed harder than anyone else despite no longer having the authority as Blue Ribbon Chair.
-
Shifting Testimonies: The Discayas changed their stories between the Senate and the House. They accused Romualdez in one chamber but downplayed it in the other.
-
Old Political Playbook: The strategy mirrors the Kerwin Espinosa–De Lima case, where coerced or coached testimony was weaponized to attack opponents while shielding allies.
-
DDS Narrative Flip: Once critics of the Discayas, DDS supporters are now defending them, trying to smear Vico and protect Duterte’s camp in preparation for Sara Duterte’s ambitions.
-
Holes in Credibility: Technical lapses in notarization, sudden illnesses, and selective name-dropping suggest the couple was following a script that collapsed once Senate leadership changed.
-
Risk of Another Napoles Scenario: There is fear this ends with contractors jailed while politicians escape, unless higher-ranking officials — at least at the Usec level — are held accountable.
In short, the consensus is that Marcoleta likely coached or reassured the Discayas in exchange for selective testimony. The leadership change in the Senate disrupted the plan, exposing inconsistencies and weakening the credibility of both the witnesses and Marcoleta himself. The bigger question remains: will this investigation truly expose the powerful figures behind the scheme, or will it once again scapegoat contractors while letting the political elite walk away untouched?
