LACSON: CONSTITUTION FIRST IN GOV’T RESPONSE TO ICC CHARGES VS ‘BATO,’ BONG GO

UPHOLDING  the Constitution must take precedence over all considerations —including loyalty to colleagues — in the government’s response to the International Criminal Court (ICC) charges against Senators Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa and Christopher Lawrence “Bong” Go, Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson said Tuesday.

Lacson maintained that the Senate’s moral ascendancy remains intact, so long as it adheres to the Charter particularly the provisions on immunity from arrest under Art. VI, Sec. 11.

“If we violate the law of the land, we have nothing to discuss. We are complying with the provision of the Constitution, which is the fundamental law of the land. It is clear that there is immunity from arrest if the penalty is six years and below, and Congress is in session,” he said in English and Filipino in an interview on One News.

Under Art. Vi, Sec. 11 of the Constitution, “(a) Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.”

The ICC earlier tagged Go and dela Rosa as among the “co-perpetrators” of former President Rodrigo Duterte in the anti-drug war during the last administration.

Lacson said it is still unclear as of now if Go and dela Rosa would qualify for immunity from arrest, as the ICC’s confirmation of charges hearing for the former President is not scheduled until Feb. 23 to 27.

Until then, he said it is not clear whether Go and dela Rosa would face imprisonment of six years and below. If it does, he said, “our Constitution can be invoked. This is not just any other law but the Constitution.”

Also, Lacson said that while there is no clear definition at this time, the Constitution’s provision on “in session” could be interpreted to mean that the immunity from arrest would be “lifted” once the first regular session adjourns sine die on June 6.

Lacson likewise addressed allegations of favoritism, pointing out that a purely “selfish” or “practical” politician might actually welcome the vacancies of Go and dela Rosa to secure the majority’s grip on the Senate.

“If this were about politics and not the Constitution, for selfish reasons, one could argue for their turnover just to secure the leadership of Senate President Vicente Sotto III. But that is not what I’m fighting for. It’s the Constitution, based on consultation with legal experts,” he said.

Lacson likewise brushed off criticisms by “lawyers” about his pro-Constitution stand, which he said is carefully vetted through consultations.

“For the record, before I put forward a legal opinion during media interviews or committee hearings, I do it in consultation with legal experts, even retired SC justices on the subject matter for discussion. This way, I trust that I’m talking more sense than ordinary lawyers,”  he said in a post on X.

He also stressed anew that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on the issue.

“I’m not saying I’m correct but I will not concede that I am wrong and they are right. The Supreme Court has not ruled on this, and there is no legal precedent on this matter,” he added.