Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson on Thursday said he finds it understandable for Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo to defend the President Duterte whether or not he made pronouncements that are either “right or wrong.”
Nevertheless, Lacson said he, and other senators, are standing pat on the provision of the 1987 Constitution that explicitly upholds the right of the members of the Senate to participate in the making of treaties or international agreements.
“It is a no-brainer that my friend from way back, Salvador Panelo, being a member of the President's Cabinet, will defend him, right or wrong. Hence, I'm willing to give him enough leeway,” Lacson said in a statement.
“That said, Art. VII, Sec. 21 of the 1987 Constitution is clear and unequivocal on the participation of each and every Senator in voting for or against the ratification of a treaty or international agreement, which the PH-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) is,” Lacson further said.
“In fact, official records of the Senate will tell us that the vote on May 27, 1999 was 18-5, without which the same would not have been valid and effective,” added the senator.
Panelo, in a statement on Wed. Feb. 17, lectured Lacson that Section 21 of Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution is “not applicable” to the VFA.
The President’s legal counsel also went on to say it was not surprising for Lacson to justify his “flawed narrative” considering he is not a lawyer. He also said he finds it “amusing” that the senator advised Duterte “who is learned and trained in law” about the provisions of the country’s Charter.
This was after Lacson criticized Duterte for saying the United States should pay the Philippines first before he considers another suspension of the VFA abrogation. According to Lacson, Duterte could have approached the issue on a diplomatic manner instead of making it appear the Philippines is a nation of “extortionist.”
In his statement, Lacson echoed Sen. Richard Gordon’s position when he said it is unacceptable to “muzzle” the Senate on issues concerning international pacts, stressing that the Upper Chamber has the right to speak on the matter. “More importantly: Whether or not an international agreement or a treaty has already been made valid and effective, it is still wrong to assert that a sitting senator and even an ordinary citizen of this country has no more freedom to express his opinion with something that concerns our national interest,” Lacson stressed.