Lacson expects junking of Faeldon’s ethics complaint for lack of substance

Senator Panfilo Lacson. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO / RICHARD A. REYES

Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson believes that the ethics complaint filed against him by resigned Customs Chief Nicanor Faeldon should be junked for lack of substance.

“Ito maliwanag na mali ‘yung sina-cite nilang basehan o legal precedent sa pagpa-file ng ethics complaint. Anyway, iaano ko na lang ito kung sakaling pasagutin ako at sa tingin ko sa sustansya pa lamang eh dapat itapon na ng ethics committee ito eh,” Lacson said in an interview over DZMM on Tuesday.

(The ethics complaint clearly cites an erroneous basis or legal precedent. I think it lacks substance and the ethics committee should just junk it.)

In filing the complaint Monday, Faeldon called the senator a “liar” for accusing him in a privilege speech of receiving a P100 million welcoming gift upon assuming his position at the Bureau of Customs (BOC).

READ: Faeldon files ethics raps vs Lacson, calls senator ‘a liar’

In the complaint, Faeldon asked the ethics committee to either suspend or expel Lacson from the Senate for “unethical, unparliamentary and improper conduct” as a senator.

“Senator Lacson, you are a liar. All your accusations against me are lies,” Faeldon said in an earlier interview.

But Lacson expressed confidence that the complaint against him would not take off, citing his immunity since he made the accusations in a privilege speech.

READ: Lacson tells Faeldon after filing ethics raps: ‘Good luck’

“Binalikan ko ‘yung sina-cite n’yang precedent Osmeña versus Pendatun, tama ‘yung Supreme Court ruling dun. Pero ‘yung naga-apply dun ‘yung 1935 Constitution. Sa 1987 Constitution, ang sinasabi, kinorek nila ‘yung 1935 at ginawa nilang absolute immunity kapag ito’y nagawa sa loob ng session hall, o debate o diskusyon sa anumang mga komite,” the senator pointed out.

(I reviewed the cited precedent Osmeña versus Pendatun, where the Supreme Court ruled correctly. But in that case, the 1935 Constitution was applied. The 1987 Constitution corrected the 1935 Constitution, and made the immunity absolute once a statement is made inside the session hall during a debate or discussions of committees.) /idl