DAVAO City Police Office (DCPO) spokesperson Captain Hazel Tuazon stressed the importance of strictly adhering to the legal rules following the “bend the law” statement of Senator Erwin Tulfo during the Senate hearing into flood control projects.
“The law is harsh, but it is the law,” Tuazon said. “We need to follow our laws first and foremost, because the law is meant to maintain order and peace. If we don’t have laws to follow and just want to please everyone, we will have chaos.”
Tuazon warned of the negative consequences of non-compliance: “If we don’t follow and respect our laws, chaos will happen in our country. This will exacerbate issues like the corruption that we are facing now.”
Also, retired Court of Appeals associate justice Loida Kahulugan criticized Tulfo’s statement, which was publicly supported by Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla.
During the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing on flood control projects on Tuesday, Sept. 23, Tulfo stated, “Sometimes we have to bend the law to be able to please the people. Am I right, Secretary Remulla?” to which Secretary Remulla replied, “Yes, sir.”
Kahulugan described the exchange as misleading and dangerous for public consumption. “In law, we have what is called Dura lex sed lex — the law is harsh, but it is the law,” she said during the Davao Peace and Security press briefing on Wednesday, September 24, 2025.
Justice Kahulugan emphasized that the law exists to maintain peace and order, and suggesting it can be “bent” is incorrect.
“For ordinary people hearing that and coming from him or from somebody whom we have placed in that hallowed hall… they might think it’s true, but that statement is wrong,” she added. “If Secretary Remulla agreed to that statement, well, that is his opinion, but I believe that is not the law.”
Tulfo clarifies remarks
Senator Tulfo later clarified his remarks in an interview with Karen Davila on Wednesday, explaining that his comment was not a call to violate laws but to allow exceptions, specifically concerning the restitution of alleged ill-gotten wealth.
“I did not say we have to break the law, literally… What I meant was, in every rule there’s an exception, that’s bending the law,” the senator said. “It was just born out of anger… what I meant was bend the law for humanitarian reasons.”
Tulfo explained he was suggesting that individuals voluntarily surrender money or property without needing to go through a lengthy court process. “I was saying, perhaps we can set aside the law for a moment because the law requires due process for restitution. But I was saying, maybe we don’t have to… Maybe they can just voluntarily surrender it, and we won’t go through the court.”
Justice Kahulugan, however, maintained that legal restitution can only occur after due process.
“Restitution comes only after a decision is made,” she explained. “A complaint must be filed, it has to be tried, evidence must be scrutinized by the court… then if the decision says that the person is guilty and he has to return whatever has been taken, that is what we call restitution.”
She agreed that if the accused parties voluntarily surrender “illegally taken” items, it could be accepted. However, she warned against demanding restitution without proof.
“We cannot demand until such time that it is proven that it was illegally taken, and after the court makes a decision,” she said.
When asked if the law can be bent to ease requirements for state witnesses to facilitate restitution, Kahulugan was firm. “That is dangerous,” she replied. “There are requirements that have to be complied with before one can be a state witness… You have to pass those requirements before you can be a state witness.”
Photo courtesy of Rhoda Grace B Saron
