Opposition lawmaker Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman on Wednesday slammed proposals to grant criminal immunity to the heirs of the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos in exchange for the return of an unspecified amount of their ill-gotten wealth.
Malaca帽ang said that, while President Rodrigo Duterte had favored such a settlement, he could not proceed unless a law was passed authorizing him.
鈥淎ny law giving criminal immunity to the Marcoses will be against well-entrenched Philippine jurisprudence that criminal culpability is not subject to compromise,鈥� Lagman said in a statement.
The Albay lawmaker cited the Supreme Court鈥檚 Dec. 9, 1998, ruling, which struck down the Dec. 28, 1993, compromise agreement between the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and the Marcos family.
Immunity only to witnesses
The Marcoses were the principal defendants and immunity applied to witnesses, the high tribunal ruled.
Any attempts by Mr. Duterte to settle with the Marcos heirs to recover the hoard, at least partially, 鈥渕ust conform to the requirements of transparency, accountability and no conditionality,鈥� Lagman said.
Lozano proposal
Lawyer and Marcos loyalist Oliver Lozano had submitted to Malaca帽ang a proposed compromise agreement and a proposed law that would grant immunity to the Macros family.
Salvador Panelo, chief presidential legal counsel, said Malaca帽ang had not taken action on Lozano鈥檚 proposals, while the camp of former Sen. Ferdinand 鈥淏ongbong鈥� Marcos Jr. denied that Lozano was their lawyer.
Presidential spokesperson Harry Roque said that Congress needed to pass a law before the President could enter into a settlement with the Marcos family.
鈥淛ust to complete the presidential position 鈥� while he is for it, it appears that his hands are tied unless there is a law authorizing him to enter into such a compromise agreement,鈥� he told reporters in a briefing.
President鈥檚 obligation
Lagman, however, argued that Mr. Duterte didn鈥檛 need a new law to pursue settlement.
The President would have a 鈥渃ontinuing right and obligation to recover the Marcos illegal wealth, either by judicial action or compromise settlement, under Executive Order No. 1 of President Corazon Aquino,鈥� he added, referring to the executive order creating the PCGG.
Roque, a former human rights lawyer, also said that striking a compromise deal with the Marcoses would run counter to the country鈥檚 antigraft and plunder laws.
鈥淲e have criminal laws penalizing plunder and it will be contrary to law to enter into a compromise agreement, except under exceptions already identified by the Supreme Court,鈥� he said.
Lozano proposed to Panelo in July the creation of a legal team to study a deal with the Marcoses. He also suggested that Mr. Duterte simply accept a 鈥渄onation鈥� from the Marcoses to skirt the legal processes required for a formal deal.