Lagman: Law bars Marcos immunity

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.

Malacañang said that, while President Rodrigo Duterte had favored such a settlement, he could not proceed unless a law was passed authorizing him.

“Any law giving criminal immunity to the Marcoses will be against well-entrenched Philippine jurisprudence that criminal culpability is not subject to compromise,” Lagman said in a statement.

The Albay lawmaker cited the Supreme Court’s 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, “must conform to the requirements of transparency, accountability and no conditionality,” Lagman said.

Lozano proposal

Lawyer and Marcos loyalist Oliver Lozano had submitted to Malacañang a proposed compromise agreement and a proposed law that would grant immunity to the Macros family.

Salvador Panelo, chief presidential legal counsel, said Malacañang had not taken action on Lozano’s proposals, while the camp of former Sen. Ferdinand “Bongbong” 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.

“Just to complete the presidential position … 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,” he told reporters in a briefing.

President’s obligation

Lagman, however, argued that Mr. Duterte didn’t need a new law to pursue settlement.

The President would have a “continuing 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,” 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’s antigraft and plunder laws.

“We 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,” 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 “donation” from the Marcoses to skirt the legal processes required for a formal deal.