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.