Tag: Solicitor General

Posted on

Lacson: SolGen May Ask SC Review of Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine in Zaldy Co, Atong Ang Cases

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

Continue reading “Lacson: SolGen May Ask SC Review of Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine in Zaldy Co, Atong Ang Cases”

Posted on

On the Actions of DND Secretary Lorenzana and Lt. Gen. Parlade

DND Sec. Delfin Lorenzana and AFP Lt. Gen. Antonio Parlade Jr.

While Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana should be commended for taking a step backward in agreeing to open the lines for future discussions with University of the Philippines President Danny Concepcion in finding a common ground to resolve the issues involving the state’s security concerns and the UP alumni’s time-honored academic freedom, Armed Forces of the Philippines Lt. Gen. Antonio Parlade Jr. keeps opening new fronts for the defense establishment to address which could have been avoided but for his careless and insensitive remarks.

Coming at a time when the Solicitor General is defending the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 against 37 petitions, particularly on the issue involving “overbreadth doctrine” among others, such remarks from a high-ranking military official is uncalled for and totally unnecessary.

There are basic freedoms that remain to be protected and upheld under RA 11479, foremost is the freedom of speech or expression. Accusing a journalist of “aiding the terrorists by spreading lies,” assuming that such comment was accurately attributed to him, surely does not help the government to convince the magistrates of the Supreme Court to rule in its favor.

At a time unity is needed against threats such as terrorism, actions that threaten to divide are the last thing our country needs.

*****

Posted on

On the Gag Order Petition on the ABS-CBN Issue

abs-gagorder

I hope the Supreme Court will not include the Senate or any of its committees in the gag order, if issued as petitioned by the Solicitor General, in deference to the settled jurisprudence that tackled similar issues in the past.

What may be covered, though, are the resource persons who will be invited to shed light on this instant case involving the franchise of ABS-CBN as they are not exempt from the sub judice rule, which covers litigants and witnesses, members of the bar and the public in general.

Thus, they may run the risk of being cited for contempt once they express their opinions that might pose a clear and present danger in the administration of justice by directly influencing the members of the Court in rendering their votes to resolve the pending petition for quo warranto.

*****

Posted on

Merit, Not Jurisdiction, is Real Issue on Quo Warranto Petition vs ABS-CBN

abs-2

Let the Supreme Court deal with the Solicitor General’s quo warranto petition. That gives no reason why the House of Representatives should not report out and debate in plenary the application for legislative franchise filed by ABS-CBN and transmit the bill to the Senate for our immediate deliberation.

As I have earlier mentioned, there is no jurisdiction issue here. Rather, it is about merits in the SolGen’s allegations regarding an existing 25-year franchise that is expiring and over which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction under the 1987 Constitution; and the merits of ABS-CBN’s application for a legislative franchise that Congress has the sole power to grant or deny under the same Constitution.

*****

Posted on

On the Quo Warranto Petition vs ABS-CBN

viber_image_2020-02-10_13-30-39

It is a matter of different jurisdictions. The quo warranto petition is under the original jurisdiction of the Court. Approval or renewal of legislative franchise is the jurisdiction of both houses of Congress. As such, I see no conflict in jurisdictions.

As in the case of former Chief Justice Sereno, under Art VIII, Sec 5, Paragraph 1 of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court exercises original jurisdiction over a petition for quo warranto, among other petitions filed by the State through the Office of the Solicitor General.

Hence, Solicitor General Jose Calida cannot be prevented from filing the petition in the case of the legislative franchise of ABS-CBN.

Likewise, Congress is not prevented from exercising its powers under the same Constitution to act on the application for renewal or a new franchise which is now pending before the House of Representatives.

*****