To the Inquirer: This refers to the Inquirer’s March 9 editorial, which questioned the decision of the Senate committee on public order and dangerous drugs, chaired by Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson, to adjourn the hearing into the claims made by retired SPO3 Arturo Lascañas.
Lacson shirked no responsibility
12:12 AM March 10, 2017
This refers to the Inquirer’s March 9 editorial (“Disturbing ‘reality check,’” Opinion) which questioned the decision of the Senate committee on public order and dangerous drugs, chaired by Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson, to adjourn the hearing into the claims made by retired SPO3 Arturo Lascañas.
In one part, the editorial quoted the senator regarding a “reality check,” that it is difficult to investigate Lascañas’ claims especially now that then Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte has become President and commander in chief.
Please allow us to point out that Senator Lacson was referring to the Philippine National Police, not the Senate and other independent bodies that have the mandate to investigate high-ranking government officials, including the President.
It also has to be noted that Lascañas’ conflicting claims, impossible to verify without corroboration, are better investigated by agencies such as the PNP and the Commission on Human Rights. Besides, while Lascañas himself admitted he had lied before the Senate, it is not enough to establish one’s statements are contradicting. It remains to be established which of those two statements are lies.
Aside from being out of context, the editorial is disturbing in that it went so far as to insinuate that the senator’s main message is that it “is difficult, even impossible, to investigate a sitting president.” If that were indeed the message, the hearing would not even have pushed through.
May we also point out that the senator has, on more than one occasion, criticized the President when he deemed it necessary.
On the other hand, the hearing chaired by Senator Lacson was adjourned not because the Senate was shirking its responsibility, but because no one objected when a motion to adjourn the hearing was made.
If there was shirking of “responsibility” as the editorial painted it, was it not by the one who should have objected to the motion but was nowhere to be found when senators were deciding on the motion to adjourn?
Joel Locsin, media relations officer, Office of Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson