Finally breaking silence, the family of Senator Panfilo Lacson called on President Benigno Aquino III to have the Dacer-Corbito case re-investigated and the warrant of arrest against their patriarch be suspended so he can safely go home.
“We maintain that the charge against my father is a form of political vendetta from the previous administration and were based on flawed and selective appreciation of facts. Every day that this flaw is not corrected is not only injustice to my father, but to us his family, as well,” said Ronald Jay Lacson, the senator’s son and his office chief of staff.
The younger Lacson said his father is very eager to face his accusers but doesn’t want to be incarcerated, even for a short moment, for a crime he did not commit. “He never considered going to jail, even for a minute, as an option,” he said.
He said that since the case was filed and the arrest warrant was issued without due course under the Arroyo administration, it would be just fair if the case is reinvestigated in light of the suppressed testimony of former police colonel Glenn Dumlao and other new pieces of evidence submitted in their motion for reconsideration before the Manila court.
During the trial of the case last August 4, Dumlao stressed in open court that Lacson and even his accuser, former policeman Cezar Mancao, had no personal knowledge of the alleged operation against public relations man Salvador `Bubby’ Dacer.
Lacson said other pieces of evidence which they submitted during the early part of the Department of Justice investigation on the case were also set aside by the prosecutors even though such glaringly prove that his father is innocent.
“We are not asking the Aquino administration to absolve my father. We would just like to ask for the suspension of the warrant against him while the case is being reinvestigated,” Lacson said.
He lamented that the Department of Foreign Affairs hastily cancelled the senator’s passport despite the arguments his lawyers presented in a letter last Friday.
o0o
[text of letter of Sen. Lacson's lawyers]
20 August 2010
Office of Consular Affairs
Department of Foreign Affairs
2330 Roxas Boulevard
1300 Pasay City
Attention: Director Fernando Beup
Passport Director
Re: Passport of Senator Panfilo M. Lacson
Gentlemen:
We write on behalf of our client, Senator Panfilo M. Lacson, in response to the 12 August 2010 letter of Undersecretary Rafael E. Seguis to our client.
Our client was informed by Undersecretary Seguis that the Secretary of Justice has sought the cancellation of Senator Lacson’s passport on the basis of Section 8(b)(1) of Republic Act No. 8239, otherwise known as the Philippine Passport Act of 1996, viz:
“Sec. 8. Grounds for Denial, Cancellation or Restrictions. — The application for passport may be denied, cancelled or restricted only on the following grounds:
xxx
(b) Cancellation
1. When the holder is a fugitive from justice.…”
However, the foregoing provision is inapplicable since it refers to the cancellation of an application for a passport, and not of the passport itself.
On the other hand, the law firm of Ongkiko Manhit Custodio & Acorda, counsel for the family of the late Salvador “Bubby” Dacer, invoked Section 8(b)(1) of R.A. No. 8239, as well as Article 9, Section 2(c) of DFA Order No. 11-97, or the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 8239. The latter provision, which states that a passport may be cancelled “upon lawful order of the court to hold the departure of an applicant because of a pending criminal case,” finds no basis in the law it implements. The said instance is a ground only for the denial of an application for the issuance of a passport, and not a ground for the cancellation of an existing passport. The IRR cannot re-write the law it implements. In the words of the Supreme Court:
“Administrative regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of law, and should be for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general supervisions. By such regulations, of course, the law itself cannot be extended. An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress.”
In addition, the objective of the Dacer family is to have the passport of Senator Lacson cancelled “in order that [he] may be brought back to the Philippines.” It is clearly not for the purpose of holding the departure of the passport holder, which is what the IRR sanctions.
Counsel for the Dacer family cited the case of Suntay v. People of the Philippines, where the Supreme Court held that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs lawfully exercised his discretion in cancelling the passport of an accused who was facing a criminal charge for seduction. However, Suntay was decided in 1957, when there was yet no provision in the Constitution limiting restrictions on the right to travel. Now, the right to travel is a fundamental right. Section 6 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution—our Bill of Rights—provides that the right to travel can only be impaired “in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.” The Supreme Court, in Silverio v. Court of Appeals, explains:
“Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court Order, the appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. They can impose limits only on the basis of ‘national security, public safety, or public health’ and ‘as may be provided by law,’ a limitive phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text (The Constitution, Bernas, Joaquin G.,S.J., Vol. I, First Edition, 1987, p. 263). Apparently, the phraseology in the 1987 Constitution was a reaction to the ban on international travel imposed under the previous regime when there was a Travel Processing Center, which issued certificates of eligibility to travel upon application of an interested party (See Salonga vs. Hermoso & Travel Processing Center, No. 53622, 25 April 1980, 97 SCRA 121).”
Section 2 of R.A. No. 8239 echoes the Constitution, viz:
“Sec. 2. Statement of Policy. — The people's constitutional right to travel is inviolable. Accordingly, the government has the duty to issue passport or any travel document to any citizen of the Philippines or individual who complies with the requirement of this Act. The right to travel may be impaired only when national security, public safety, or public health requires. To enhance and protect the unimpaired exercise of this right, only minimum requirements for the application and issuance of passports and other travel documents shall be prescribed. Action on such application and the issuance shall be expedited.”
The grounds upon which passports may be cancelled must be read in conjunction with Section 2 of R.A. No. 8239 and, more importantly, the Constitution. In other words, it is not enough to allege that the holder of the passport is a fugitive from justice, or that the cancellation of a passport is for the purpose of holding the departure of an accused. It must also be shown that national security, public safety, or public health requires such cancellation. Here, there is no such showing.
Moreover, Senator Lacson is still in the process of exhausting judicial remedies to recall the warrants of arrest issued against him and to have the criminal cases filed against him dismissed on the ground of lack of probable cause. These are remedies that do not require his physical presence.
Finally, it bears stressing that Branch 18 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila directed the DFA “to observe the mandate set forth in the said case [Suntay] and other existing rules and jurisprudence on the matter.” With all due respect, therefore, this Honorable Office cannot order the cancellation of Senator Lacson’s passport.
Very truly yours,
POBLADOR BAUTISTA & REYES
By:
ALEXANDER J. POBLADOR
JAIME G. HOFILEÑA
MA. ELIZABETH L. LICERALDE
Copy furnished:
Regional Trial Court of Manila
Branch 18
Criminal Case No. 10-272905-906
Secretary Leila M. De Lima
Department of Justice
Manila
Ongkiko Manhit Custodio & Acorda Law Offices
Counsel for the family of Salvador Dacer
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Mancao 'Offer' Claim Shows Desperation
“I don’t accept bribes, so why would I offer a bribe?”
On this note, Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson on Wednesday brushed off former police colonel Cezar Mancao II’s claim of a so-called bribe offer to recant his testimony linking him to the Dacer-Corbito case.
Lacson said Mancao and his lawyer may be turning desperate, after the testimony of former Senior Superintendent Glenn Dumlao in court last August 4 effectively demolished Mancao’s fabricated claims.
“The fact of the matter is, the court testimony of Glenn Dumlao has effectively demolished Mancao’s fabricated testimony against me. That’s why Mancao and his lawyer are on desperation mode,” he said.
Also, Lacson noted the same court records showed Mancao contradicted himself on many points, even testifying that he signed an affidavit prepared by government prosecutor Hazel Valdez.
Further, Lacson said Mancao’s testimony was disproved by former Senator Manuel Roxas II and former Press Secretary Michael Toledo – along with unimpeachable documents he submitted during the preliminary investigation by the Justice Department during the Arroyo regime.
Mancao has a pending application to be discharged as a suspect and to be a state witness in the case before he can be formally admitted to the government’s witness protection program.
“From the very start, it is easy to comprehend that Mancao is conveniently fabricating these lies to benefit himself. He implicated Senator Lacson so he can get out of prison in the US and go back to the Philippines – all expenses paid at that. And now, he is accusing our camp of trying to bribe him into recanting a testimony which was already shattered in court,” added Lacson’s lawyer Alex Avisado Jr.
Last August 4, Dumlao stressed in open court that Lacson had no personal knowledge about the alleged operation against Salvador “Bubby” Dacer, contrary to Mancao’s claim that he heard his former superior ordering the liquidation of a certain “Delta” sometime in September 2000.
Dumlao also testified that Mancao was not even aware of the alleged operation until after Dumlao reported to Mancao, then his task force commander, that such an operation was carried out.
o0o
On this note, Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson on Wednesday brushed off former police colonel Cezar Mancao II’s claim of a so-called bribe offer to recant his testimony linking him to the Dacer-Corbito case.
Lacson said Mancao and his lawyer may be turning desperate, after the testimony of former Senior Superintendent Glenn Dumlao in court last August 4 effectively demolished Mancao’s fabricated claims.
“The fact of the matter is, the court testimony of Glenn Dumlao has effectively demolished Mancao’s fabricated testimony against me. That’s why Mancao and his lawyer are on desperation mode,” he said.
Also, Lacson noted the same court records showed Mancao contradicted himself on many points, even testifying that he signed an affidavit prepared by government prosecutor Hazel Valdez.
Further, Lacson said Mancao’s testimony was disproved by former Senator Manuel Roxas II and former Press Secretary Michael Toledo – along with unimpeachable documents he submitted during the preliminary investigation by the Justice Department during the Arroyo regime.
Mancao has a pending application to be discharged as a suspect and to be a state witness in the case before he can be formally admitted to the government’s witness protection program.
“From the very start, it is easy to comprehend that Mancao is conveniently fabricating these lies to benefit himself. He implicated Senator Lacson so he can get out of prison in the US and go back to the Philippines – all expenses paid at that. And now, he is accusing our camp of trying to bribe him into recanting a testimony which was already shattered in court,” added Lacson’s lawyer Alex Avisado Jr.
Last August 4, Dumlao stressed in open court that Lacson had no personal knowledge about the alleged operation against Salvador “Bubby” Dacer, contrary to Mancao’s claim that he heard his former superior ordering the liquidation of a certain “Delta” sometime in September 2000.
Dumlao also testified that Mancao was not even aware of the alleged operation until after Dumlao reported to Mancao, then his task force commander, that such an operation was carried out.
o0o
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Office: Red Tape Bill Already a Law
Why push a bill that is already a law?
On this note, the office of Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson said there is no more need to push the passage of an anti-red tape bill that had not only been signed into law, but is already being implemented since last year.
"As early as June 2, 2007, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed Republic Act 9485, or the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007, into law. Senator Lacson was the author and sponsor of that measure, being the acting chair of the Senate Civil Service and Government Reorganization Committee at the time," said lawyer Cesar Salazar, Lacson's chief legislative officer.
The Office of Sen. Lacson said the measure should ease up and accelerate government transactions in government agencies, both at the national and local levels.
It added the anti-red tape measure should also address problems hounding the ease of doing business in the Philippines.
RA 9485 requires government offices to adopt fixed deadlines to complete transactions, and regularly assess and upgrade their frontline services.
It provides a five-day deadline for the completion of simple transactions, and a 10-day deadline for the completion of complex transactions that require background checks.
While the law deems as approved transactions that are not acted upon, it penalizes heads of departments or offices who allow such transactions to lapse.
The law also limits the number of signatories to five, in contrast to past transactions that would have required more than 20 signatures.
Government offices must set up information billboards and public assistance desks, and frontline agencies will be subject to a report card survey by the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
The law also provides immunity to whistleblowers to encourage them to expose corruption in the bureaucracy.
o0o
On this note, the office of Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson said there is no more need to push the passage of an anti-red tape bill that had not only been signed into law, but is already being implemented since last year.
"As early as June 2, 2007, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed Republic Act 9485, or the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007, into law. Senator Lacson was the author and sponsor of that measure, being the acting chair of the Senate Civil Service and Government Reorganization Committee at the time," said lawyer Cesar Salazar, Lacson's chief legislative officer.
The Office of Sen. Lacson said the measure should ease up and accelerate government transactions in government agencies, both at the national and local levels.
It added the anti-red tape measure should also address problems hounding the ease of doing business in the Philippines.
RA 9485 requires government offices to adopt fixed deadlines to complete transactions, and regularly assess and upgrade their frontline services.
It provides a five-day deadline for the completion of simple transactions, and a 10-day deadline for the completion of complex transactions that require background checks.
While the law deems as approved transactions that are not acted upon, it penalizes heads of departments or offices who allow such transactions to lapse.
The law also limits the number of signatories to five, in contrast to past transactions that would have required more than 20 signatures.
Government offices must set up information billboards and public assistance desks, and frontline agencies will be subject to a report card survey by the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
The law also provides immunity to whistleblowers to encourage them to expose corruption in the bureaucracy.
o0o
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)