Contact Details

Rm. N-411, House of Representatives, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
+63 2 931 5497, +63 2 931 5001 local 7370

Press Statements
  • Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
  • 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137
  • 07 December 2011

 

            The Committee on Justice’s sustaining by a vote of 40 to 7 the sufficiency in substance of the impeachment complaint against Supreme Court Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo is the best timing for a bad precedent.

               It gives political support to the relentless assault of President Aquino against the Supreme Court, particularly Chief Justice Renato Corona and majority of the Justices.

               It portends of more partisan tirades and adverse actions against the High Court.

             The Castillo impeachment complaint has remained unacted since the Committee on Justice on 18 May 2011 or almost six months ago found the complaint sufficient in form by a close vote of 11 to 10.

              The voting was patently premature because while the complainants alleged as the actionable decision the Supreme Court ruling in the Vinuya case, they failed and refused to submit to the Committee and its members authentic copies of said decision.

              Similarly, while the complainants alleged and minimized the import and relevance of the Supreme Court per curiam decision exonerating Justice Castillo of any wrong doing based on “plagiarism”, they also refused and failed to provide the Committee the certified copies of said decision.

              The reason for the refusal of the complainants to furnish the Committee with said relevant documents is obvious and self-serving because the subject records will validate that the complaint is devoid of substance.

              The Vinuya decision if read in its entirety will show that even if the alleged plagiarized articles are discarded, the principal thrust or ratio decidende of the decision – that the Government cannot be compelled to initiate action on behalf of comfort women – will not be affected or eroded.

              The decision of the Supreme Court finding Justice Castillo not culpable of plagiarism will defeat the bare allegations of the complainant, since the High Court ruled that “a judge writing to resolve a dispute, whether trial or appellate, is exempted from a charge of plagiarism even if ideas, words or phrases from a law review article, novel thoughts published in a legal periodical or language from a party’s brief are used without giving attribution.”

              The Supreme Court further said that “on the whole, his (Castillo’s) work was original. He had done an honest work.”

  

 

Press Statements
  • Office of the Minority Leader
  • Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
  • 05 December 2011
  • 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137

  

             It is ironical that while the Aquino Administration “respects the decision of the Supreme People’s Court of China” imposing the death sentence on a Filipino who tried to smuggle 1.4 kilos of heroin in 2008, the same Aquino Administration disregards the Philippine Supreme Court’s decision to allow former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to travel abroad for medical treatment.

             While the Aquino Administration defers to China’s “legal processes” and concedes that “the decision of the court is final”, it defies our own Supreme Court’s temporary restraining order (TRO) which is immediately executory prohibiting the implementation of the DOJ Circular No. 41 and the Watch List Orders issued by Sec. Leila De Lima against the Arroyos.

             It is alarming that while the Aquino Administration submits to the jurisdiction of a foreign forum which forfeits the life of an Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW), it refuses to accord recognition to an order of the Supreme Court which upholds civil liberties and protects the life and rights of a Filipino former Chief of State.

Press Statements
  • Office of the Minority Leader
  • Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
  • 05 December 2011
  • 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137

  

        The allegation of a United States multi-million peso lobby fund for the enactment of the RH bill is an old yarn which is destitute of factual basis.

         This is a dead and fossilized tirade which anti-RH solons like Cebu Rep. Pablo Garcia try to resurrect every time the RH bill is at the threshold of approval.

         Allegation is not proof. Garcia has consistently failed to prove his bare allegations.

         Garcia delivered a privilege speech to bait RH advocates to protracted and repetitive debates in order to further delay the passage of the RH bill, but there were no takers because the ploy of Garcia was too obvious and crude.

         Ironically, Garcia is myopic to the well-oiled lobby against the bill by the organized and wealthy Catholic hierarchy with the aid of dozens of lay organizations which are well-funded.

         Garcia has long been the conservative spokesman who has been pontificating from the antediluvian pulpit like when he vociferously opposed progressive legislation such as the institution of a comprehensive agrarian reform program and the abolition of the death penalty, both battles he had lost.

         The principal proponents of the RH bill are recognized nationalist legislators who will not take a cent from foreign lobbyists.

         The Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD) for more than two decades has been a well-respected NGO both locally and internationally. Its enduring advocacy on population and development antedates the introduction of the RH bill.

         PLCPD does not promote population control, but advocates freedom of informed choice with respect to reproductive health and the various forms of family planning from the natural to the modern which are medically safe, legal and truly effective.

Press Statements

Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
House Minority Leader
03 December 2011
0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137
 
          Instead of focusing on how he would arrest the deterioration of the economy, President Aquino continued to harangue the Supreme Court and persecute former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in his address during the 30th anniversary celebration of the Makati Business Club the other day.
 
          Members of the Makati Business Club were disappointed when the President failed to outline his immediate economic agenda in the wake of the country’s anemic 3.2% growth rate in the third quarter.
 
          Moreover, concerned citizens expressed via social networking their disgust and condemnation of the President’s predilection for castigating the Supreme Court and Arroyo.
 
          Neither the Supreme Court, a judicial tribunal, nor Arroyo, who laid down strong economic fundamentals for the country, is the culprit in our current economic woes.
 
          Only the Aquino administration can be blamed for the dismal economic performance because it has prioritized partisan vendetta over sound economic policies.
 
          The Supreme Court, as the final arbiter of justiciable issues, cannot be blamed for acting with judicious dispatch when civil liberties, like the right to travel and the tenet of due process, are bastardized by the Executive Department.
 
          Fault-finding and engaging in the blame game are the trademarks of poor governance and are convenient smokescreens for lackadaisical performance.

Press Statements
  • Office of Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
  • 29 November 2011
  • 0916-6406737

 

          Neither the Rules of Court nor any law prohibits house arrest as a reasonable mode of placing an accused in custody.

             On the contrary, the Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372 on Anti-Terrorism) authorizes house arrest, and decisions of the Supreme Court have recognized house arrest as consistent with the purpose of custodial detention which is to secure the safety of the accused and prevent his escape as provided for in R.A. 7438 (An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation as well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining and Investigating Officers, and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof).

           Rule 113 of the Rules of Court defines arrest as “the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer to the commission of the offense”, but does not impose that the custody be in a prison facility.

           House arrest has been institutionalized worldwide in deference to former presidents, premiers, kings and heads of state or when confinement in prison is not appropriate due to the age or delicate medical condition of the accused.