State lawyers may ask for a review of the Supreme Court’s “fugitive disentitlement doctrine” to help them further limit the legal options of absconders like former party-list lawmaker Elizaldy “Zaldy” Co and businessman Charlie “Atong” Ang.

Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo “Ping” Lacson pointed this out on Friday, January 29 after Co's camp claimed the doctrine does not apply to him.

The said doctrine is embodied in the Supreme Court's Nov. 25, 2025 ruling (GR 259337), which clarifies the rules on fugitive status and barring them from judicial relief unless conditions are satisfied.

“Paging SolGen (Solicitor General): It may be wise to ask the Court to revisit the ‘fugitive disentitlement doctrine’ in GR 259337 dtd Nov. 25, 2025 that refined Miranda vs Tuliao in relation to the cases of Zaldy Co and Atong Ang,” Lacson said on his post on X.

https://x.com/iampinglacson/status/2017003436819243039

Authorities, including the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, which Lacson chairs, have been seeking for Co in relation to the anomalous flood control projects.

Ang, on the other hand, is being tracked down in relation to the case of the missing cock fighters (sabungeros).

Co's camp, in challenging the Ombudsman's resolution that led to the filing of graft and malversation charges against him, claimed the fugitive disentitlement doctrine should not apply to his Sandiganbayan cases.

They argued that judgment has not been rendered against Co, who is now in Sweden, "so he is not an appellant; neither is he an escapee or bail jumper."

In a Dec. 10, 2025 resolution, the Sandiganbayan declared Co a "fugitive from justice."

In its November 2025 ruling, the Supreme Court created an exception to Miranda vs. Tuliao (G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006) allowing individuals to seek affirmative relief in criminal cases while staying outside the reach of Philippine courts - when the accused is a fugitive from justice.

Based on this ruling, a fugitive from justice is someone "who not only flees after conviction to avoid punishment, but one who also flees after being charged to avoid prosecution," adding that "the essential element is the intent to evade prosecution or punishment."

Under the ruling, if there is a failure to execute the warrant of arrest by reason that the accused is outside the Philippine jurisdiction, as stated in the executing officer’s return, the court may, either by motion or motu proprio, and after assessment of the circumstances of the case, declare the accused a fugitive from justice.

“From then, such person loses their standing in court, can no longer participate in the proceedings, and seek any judicial relief. They can only restore their standing before the court through voluntary surrender,” it said.

In such cases, it said that jurisdiction over the person of the accused is not acquired simply by the filing of pleadings or participation through counsel.

“Custody over the person of the accused, whether through arrest or voluntary surrender, must first be obtained before the case may proceed,” it said.