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
  • Office of the Minority Leader
  • Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
  • 24 November 2011
  • 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137

 

               The legacy of former President Corazon C. Aquino as an icon of the revival of democracy in the Philippines cannot be commensurately recognized by renaming EDSA in her honor.

               EDSA must remain as EDSA to memorialize and immortalize the unrelenting collective efforts of the masses of Filipinos, particularly the workers, peasants and students, which culminated in the ouster of the Marcos dictatorship.

               The peaceful Philippine People Power Revolution is acclaimed worldwide as the “EDSA Revolution”, a triumphant uprising not of one person but of nameless and common Filipinos.

                EDSA must not be changed as it is a constant reminder to the tyrannical tendencies of national leaders, now and in the future, and to uphold at all times the supremacy of the Constitution and the ascendency of the rule of law.

               While Rep. Relampagos has noble motives in legislating the change of name, such good intentions cannot justify the alteration of history.

 

 

Press Statements
  • Office of the Minority Leader Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
  • (0916)640-6737 / 9315497
  • 23 November 2011

 

The call for resignation of former President and now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is utterly uncalled for and baseless for the following overriding reasons:

 

  1. There are pending prejudicial questions before the Supreme Court which if resolved in favor of the petitioners would nullify the proceedings of the joint DOJ-Comelec Panel whose constitutionality and jurisdiction are being challenged, and will also result in the quashal of the precipitately issued warrant of arrest by the RTC of Pasay City;
  2. GMA, like any citizen, enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence;
  3. Precedents involving Members of the House in similar situations were not made to resign pending final adjudication of their cases;
  4. Resignation is personal to the incumbent and is not subject to the premature “judgment” of a colleague or the institution;
  5. Service to the constituents can be extended by the incumbent’s staff under her direction and the bills she has filed are now pending before the legislative mill.

Press Statements
Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
House Minority Leader
20 November 2011
0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137
 
LAGMAN: INORDINATE HASTE
WAYLAYS THE RULE OF LAW
 
          The rule of law demands speedy justice but it condemns inordinate haste in rendering “justice”.
 
          While justice delayed is justice denied, “justice” dispensed with malevolently and with precipitate alacrity waylays the rule of law.
 
          It is for this reason that Section 2 of the Bill of Rights mandates that “no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce”.
 
          Similarly, Section 6 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court allows the judge up to 10 days from the filing of the complaint or information within which to “personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence” before deciding whether or not to issue a warrant of arrest based on his personal determination of the evidence on the existence or non-existence of probable cause.
 
          Settled is the jurisprudence that what the judge “is never allowed to do is to follow blindly the prosecutor’s bare certification as to the existence of probable cause. Much more is required by the constitutional provision.”
 
          With admittedly eight volumes of evidence, affidavits and documents submitted to the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, it would be a Herculean task to wade through the voluminous records and would be physically impossible for a judge to determine probable cause in less than four hours to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
 
          The inordinate and precipitate haste in the issuance of the warrant of arrest brazenly violates Section 14 of the Bill of Rights which provides that “no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.”

Press Statements
Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
House Minority Leader
20 November 2011
0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137
 
LAGMAN: TRO IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY
PENDING COMPLIANCE WITH SOME CONDITIONS
 
          The conditions prescribed by the Supreme Court did not temporize or suspend the immediate executory character of the temporary restraining order (TRO) allowing the Arroyos to travel because the non-compliance with some conditions within the periods fixed by the Supreme Court would only result in the automatic lifting of the TRO, which meanwhile is effective.
 
          The dispositive portion of the TRO is unequivocal on its being immediately executory upon issuance. It reads in full: “NOW, THEREFORE, effective immediately and continuing until further orders from this Court, You, Respondents, your agents, representatives, or persons acting in your place or stead, are hereby ENJOINED from enforcing or implementing DOJ Department Circular No. 41 and Watchlist Order Nos. ASM-11-237 dated August 9, 2011, 2011-422 dated September 6, 2011 and 2011-573 dated October 27, 2011.”
 
          While the TRO is specifically ordained by the Supreme Court as immediately executory, compliance with the condition on the appointment of a common counsel for the Arroyos to receive the Court’s subpoena, orders and other legal processes is to be satisfied “within five (5) days from notice” of the TRO.
 
          Moreover, the reportorial requirement for the Arroyos to notify the Philippine Embassy or Consulate of their arrival in the countries of their destination would have to be obviously complied with subsequent to their arrival.
 
          The former First Couple immediately complied with the posting of the P2,000,000.00 cash bond.
 
          Verily, the TRO is immediately executory pending the petitioners’ compliance with some of the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court.

Press Statements
Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
Mobile No. 0918-9120137
18 November 2011
 
 
            There is no more obstacle to the former First Couple’s travel abroad to destinations of their choice in order to avail of foreign medical treatment for former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s rare ailment.
 
            The Supreme Court has rejected the government’s motion for reconsideration of the earlier temporary restraining order (TRO) which the High Court issued upholding the Arroyos’ constitutional right to travel and restraining the implementation of DOJ Circular No. 41 and the three watchlist orders issued by Justice Secretary Leila de Lima.
 
            The precipitate filing by the COMELEC of an electoral sabotage case against the former President, among other officials, cannot automatically bar the travel of the Arroyos because the very jurisdiction and composition of the joint DOJ-COMELEC panel, which investigated the case and recommended the filing of the criminal charge, has been challenged before the Supreme Court which has still to act on the subject prejudicial petition.
 
            Moreover, the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City to which the case was raffled cannot motu proprio issue a hold departure order (HDO) before a hearing is conducted after due notice to the parties concerned.