Government lawyers may seek a review of the Supreme Court’s “fugitive disentitlement doctrine” to help them further limit the legal options of fugitives like Ex-Rep. Elizaldy Co and trader Charlie “Atong” Ang, Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson said Friday.
This was after Co’s camp claimed the doctrine – embodied in the Supreme Court’s Nov. 25, 2025 ruling (GR 259337), clarifying the rules on fugitive status and barring them from judicial relief unless conditions are satisfied – does not apply to him.
“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 X.
In Filipino: Lacson: Maaaring Hilingin ng SolGen sa SC ang Pagrepaso sa Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine sa Kaso nina Zaldy Co, Atong Ang
Co’s camp, in challenging from Sweden 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.
It argued that judgment has not been rendered against Co, “so he is not an appellant; neither is he an escapee or bail jumper.”
Co is wanted by authorities, including the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee which Lacson chairs, in relation to the corruption behind anomalous flood control projects. Ang is being tracked down in relation to the case of the missing sabungeros.
In a Dec. 10, 2025 resolution, the Sandiganbayan declared Co a “fugitive from justice.”
The Supreme Court’s November 2025 ruling creates 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.
It pointed out that 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.”
“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.
Thus, in such cases, it said 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.
*****
Lacson: Maaaring Hilingin ng SolGen sa SC ang Pagrepaso sa Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine sa Kaso nina Zaldy Co, Atong Ang
Maaaring humiling ang mga abogado ng pamahalaan ng pagrepaso sa “fugitive disentitlement doctrine” ng Korte Suprema upang higit pang malimitahan ang mga legal na opsyon ng mga pugante tulad ni dating Rep. Elizaldy Co at negosyanteng si Charlie “Atong” Ang, ani Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson nitong Biyernes.
Kasunod ito ng pahayag ng kampo ni Co na ang naturang doktrina — na nakapaloob sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema noong Nob. 25, 2025 (G.R. No. 259337), na naglinaw sa mga patakaran hinggil sa fugitive status at nagbabawal sa paghingi ng judicial relief maliban kung natutugunan ang ilang kundisyon — ay hindi umano naaangkop sa kanya.
“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,” ani Lacson sa X.
Iginiit ng kampo ni Co, na kinwestyon mula sa Sweden ang resolusyon ng Ombudsman na nagbunsod sa pagsasampa ng mga kasong graft at malversation laban sa kanya, na hindi dapat i-apply ang fugitive disentitlement doctrine sa kanyang mga kaso sa Sandiganbayan.
Ayon sa kanila, wala pang hatol laban kay Co, “so he is not an appellant; neither is he an escapee or bail jumper.”
Hinahanap ng mga awtoridad si Co, kabilang ang Senate Blue Ribbon Committee na pinamumunuan ni Lacson, kaugnay ng korapsyon sa likod ng mga maanomalyang flood control projects. Si Ang naman ay tinutugis kaugnay ng kaso ng mga nawawalang sabungero.
Sa isang resolusyon noong Disyembre 10, 2025, idineklara ng Sandiganbayan si Co bilang isang “fugitive from justice.”
Sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema noong Nobyembre 2025, lumikha ito ng exception sa Miranda vs. Tuliao (G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006), na nagpapahintulot sa mga indibidwal na humingi ng affirmative relief sa mga kasong kriminal habang nananatiling wala sa saklaw ng mga korte ng Pilipinas – kapag ang akusado ay isang fugitive from justice.
Ipinaliwanag nito na ang isang fugitive from justice ay isang tumakas hindi lang pagkatapos ma-convict, kundi tumakas matapos makasuhan. “The essential element is the intent to evade prosecution or punishment,” ayon sa Korte Suprema.
“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,” ayon sa desisyon.
Dahil dito, sinabi rin ng Korte na sa ganitong mga kaso, ang hurisdiksyon sa katauhan ng akusado ay hindi basta nakukuha sa pamamagitan lamang ng paghahain ng mga pleadings o pakikilahok sa pamamagitan ng abogado. “Custody over the person of the accused, whether through arrest or voluntary surrender, must first be obtained before the case may proceed,” ayon dito.
*****