That being said, an impartial investigation must be conducted immediately with the end in view of preventing any similar incident in the future.
More importantly, the intended hostage is safe and unscathed even as we should pray for the injured police officer.
What is not known to many, an offer for transfer was already made by the PNP to Sen de Lima as early as mid-August this year on the occasion of the US Congressional delegation visit led by Sen. Markey, the reason being – the PNP Custodial Center is primarily designed for high-value criminals and high-risk terrorists. Unfortunately, the former senator declined the offer and opted to stay where she is presently detained.
That all being said, and without intending to preempt the authorities, high-risk detainees who are members of an internationally proscribed terrorist organization like the Abu Sayyaf Group should be isolated and not mixed with the other PDLs.
That, I assume, will be part of the recommendations in an investigation now being conducted.
To Rappler: We wish to set the record straight regarding the claim made by Walden Bello in his opinion article “De Lima vs Duterte duel enters critical phase,” posted Aug. 15, 2021 – where he supposedly quoted Sen. Leila de Lima as accusing Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson of being among the supposed “enablers and conspirators” of President Rodrigo Duterte.
Matatapos na ang pamamayagpag ng mga testigong nagbibigay ng mapanlinlang at pagsisinungaling na testimonya sa mga pagdinig para manira ng reputasyon at magpahamak ng ibang tao, matapos umusad na sa Senado ang panukalang nagbibigay ng pinabigat na parusa sa mga ito.
Sumalang na sa sponsorship sa plenaryo ang Senate Bill 1354 na natutungkol sa pagpapataw ng parusa sa mga nabanggit na klase ng testigo na ang pakay ay manira at manghiya sa publiko ng mga target nila.
Sinegundahan ni Senador Panfilo M. Lacson si Senador Richard Gordon sa pagsalang sa plenaryo ng panukala sa pamamagitan ng co-sponsorship, para matiyak na hindi na mangyayari sa iba ang masamang karanasan niya sa mga sumira sa kanyang pagkatao sa pamamagitan ng imbentong kuwento bilang testigo.
“It goes without saying that this measure will deter the commission of the crimes of false testimony and perjury in solemn affirmation and uphold the sacredness of oath in testimonies and sworn statements by increasing the penalty for their commission. It is for these reasons that I fully support the passage of this measure,” banggit ng mambabatas sa kanyang co-sponsorship speech sa hybrid session ng Senado noong Miyerkules.
To finally put an end to the practice of fake news and false testimonies meant to destroy people’s reputations, Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson batted for the swift passage of a Senate bill providing heavier penalties against perjury.
Lacson – himself a victim of such false testimonies in the past – noted that while he had filed such a measure as early as 2011, it was left languishing in the legislative mill.
“It goes without saying that this measure will deter the commission of the crimes of false testimony and perjury in solemn affirmation and uphold the sacredness of oath in testimonies and sworn statements by increasing the penalty for their commission. It is for these reasons that I fully support the passage of this measure,” he said in his co-sponsorship speech for Senate Bill 1354, which he co-authored with Senate President Vicente Sotto III and Senators Richard Gordon and Leila de Lima, at the Senate hybrid session Wednesday.
In an interview on DZRH, Sen. Lacson answered questions on:
* post-ECQ scenarios [1:01]
* continued lack of testing, contact tracing [2:46]
* Senate teleconferencing due to COVID-19 [12:59]
* Pagcor allowing reopening of POGO [21:48]
* mensahe sa mga pasaway [28:21]
Allowing and denying the entry of foreigners into the territory of the United States, or any country for that matter, is a matter of right of that host country. They don’t even have to justify it.
What is unacceptable is the passage of a resolution by the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that calls for the dismissal of charges against any respondent in a criminal case, in this case, Sen. de Lima and Maria Ressa. It is an affront to the integrity of our courts and the country’s judicial system. Even the President or any executive official, or any member of our Congress, cannot issue a formal resolution that will encroach on the power of a co-equal branch of government.
To the Inquirer: Please allow us to set the record straight regarding Solita Monsod’s Sept. 14 column, “Three against Leila,” where she insinuated that Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson had an “axe to grind” against Sen. Leila M. de Lima as his motive in inviting former Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) OIC Rafael Ragos and Jovencio Ablen Jr. of the National Bureau of Investigation as resource persons to the Senate hearing on corruption at the BuCor last Sept. 12.
In an interview on DWIZ, Sen. Lacson answered questions on:
– corruption and other irregularities at the Bureau of Corrections
– transfer of high-profile convicts to Marines facility from New Bilibid Prison
– possible attempts to insert pork in the 2020 budget
In an interview on DWIZ, Sen. Lacson answered questions on: – arming BFP firefighters to fight enemies of the state
– President Duterte’s ‘reply’ to Sen. Gordon’s statement
– irregularities and corruption at PCSO, DOH, PhilHealth
– Pastor Quiboloy’s reported comments
– allowing Sen. de Lima to take part in legislative work via teleconferencing
“… To allow, as it hereby allows, Senator Leila M. de Lima to participate in Senate Plenary Sessions through teleconferencing, video conferencing or other reliable forms of remote or electronic communications through the use of the appropriate electronic equipment and/or devices or medium of information, broadcast or telecommunications facilities or equipment.” (co-author with Sen. Drilon)
In an interview on DWIZ, Sen. Lacson answers questions on: – possible veto of the 2019 budget
– resolution calling out US senators for arrogance
– new vote-buying scheme using 4Ps, up to P25,000 per vote?
– Holy Week 2019
Isinulong ni Senador Panfilo Lacson, kasama si Senate President Vicente Sotto III at Sen. Gregorio Honasan II, ang resolusyong naglalayong sermunan ang mga mambabatas ng Estados Unidos na nakikialam sa sistema ng hudikatura ng Pilipinas sa pamamagitan ng dalawang resolusyon.
Sa Senate Resolution 1037 na magkasamang iniakda at isinumite ng tatlong mambabatas, malinaw na isinaad ng mga ito na hindi puwedeng makialam ang mga dayuhan sa panloob ng usapin ng Pilipinas.
Nilinaw din ni Lacson na walang ibang hangarin ang kanilang pagsasampa sa Senate Resolution 1037, at kung may mga personalidad umanong nasali sa aksyon nilang ito laban sa pakikialam ng mga banyagang mambabatas, ito ay nagkataon lamang.
“Sen. (Leila) de Lima and Ms. (Maria) Ressa are but incidental to the intent of this resolution. They are entitled to fair justice and judgment by the courts handling their cases. But what we need to point out is that supremacism has no place in a civilized world regardless of race, color and status in wealth and power,” paliwanag ni Lacson.
Senate President Vicente C. Sotto III and two colleagues filed late Wednesday a resolution rebuking some members of the United States Congress for interfering with the Philippine judicial process via two proposed resolutions.
Introducing Philippine Senate Resolution 1037 along with Sotto were Senators Panfilo M. Lacson and Gregorio B. Honasan II.
Lacson emphasized Sen. Leila de Lima and Maria Ressa, whose release the proposed US resolutions sought, are “incidental” to the intent of the Philippine Senate resolution.
“Sen. de Lima and Ms. Ressa are but incidental to the intent of this resolution. They are entitled to fair justice and judgment by the courts handling their cases. But what we need to point out is that supremacism has no place in a civilized world regardless of race, color and status in wealth and power.” Lacson stressed.
In an interview on DWIZ, Sen. Lacson answered questions on:
– situation of detained Sen. de Lima
– options for new Customs Commissioner Guerrero
– PNPA sex scandal as a ‘test case’ for the Anti-Hazing Law of 2018
– proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2018
– Sen. Honasan being eyed to head DICT
First, Speaker Arroyo’s recommendation is based on the wrong premise. The IPU has yet to act on its Human Rights Committee’s recommendation to the IPU Governing Council. Having said that, it is premature, if at all, to denounce the IPU as a whole, much less withdraw membership from the body.
Second, by withdrawing, it would imply that the Philippine Senate acknowledges the political persecution of opposition senators.
Contrarily, the recent resolution of Sen. Trillanes’ coup d’etat case by the Makati RTC Branch 148 is proof enough that the judicial process works in our country, and that the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary from the executive and legislative is evident and clear.
Third, it is the Senate, not the House of Representatives, that is a member of the IPU, so I’m not sure where Speaker GMA is coming from.
No way. We should all understand and respect our criminal justice system. The Senate cannot and will not interfere with the courts that have jurisdiction over Sen. de Lima’s drug cases.
Having said that, the judiciary is independent of the executive and legislative branches. The same goes true, and even worse, in the case of foreign organizations and groups that are calling for her immediate release.
They have no business in arrogantly asking our president to release Sen de Lima. That’s totally uncalled for.
She got it all wrong. When I said pinagtatawanan ko lang yung pinagdadaanan niya ngayon compared to what I experienced before, I wasn’t referring to the credibility of evidence being presented against her now and against me before, but the degree of harassment that former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her cohorts in practically all the agencies of government were throwing against me. I was all alone at that time. I had practically nobody on my side except probably my family, while she has her LP allies supporting her now.
She shouldn’t be twisting my statement to suit her purpose.
Once a resolution or bill is referred to more than one committee, there is no such thing as separate committee hearings. The committees always conduct the hearings together, no matter how diverse and opposing the views of the chairs and members of the committees concerned.
Having said that, I don’t know what Sen de Lima is talking about in this regard. The referral says her committee is the lead or primary committee so she will call the shots in this case. I will attend the hearings as called and I hope the members of both the Justice and Human Rights and Public Order and Dangerous Drugs committees will also attend and contribute to whatever logical output as will be contained in the committee report.