Lacson camp asks CA to clarify arrest issue

Lawyers of Sen. Panfilo Lacson on Monday asked the Court of Appeals (CA) to clarify whether its recent decision dismissing the double murder charges against the lawmaker effectively nullified the arrest warrant issued against him. In a nine-page manifestation, lawyers Alex Poblador and Joseph Perez asked the CA to "clarify that the arrest warrants have been nullified and set aside and that such nullification or setting aside is immediately effective, executory and enforceable." "There is a debate because there are opposing opinions. We can debate until eternity (but) the issue will not be resolved unless the CA clarifies the matter," said Poblador in an interview with reporters at the Senate on Monday. The CA last week dismissed the double murder case lodged against Lacson in connection with the abduction and killing of publicist Salvador “Bubby" Dacer and Emmanuel Corbito in November 2000.

Lacson’s lawyers confused? Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, however, said the warrant of arrest remains in effect because the CA decision is not yet final and executory. On Monday, De Lima said she is standing by her position and accused Lacson’s lawyers of misinterpreting the CA ruling as an acquittal when it merely reversed the Manila Regional Trial Court’s finding of probable cause to charge Lacson. “They are confusing it with an acquittal. Acquittal is immediately final and executory, but not this one. We are not yet talking about acquittal. This is yet still the determination of probable cause... and subject to motion for reconsideration within 15 days, and subject to the appeal at the Supreme Court," said De Lima, herself a lawyer. Continuing threat In the manifestation, Lacson’s lawyers said the clarification is urgently needed because the positions of De Lima and the Philippine National Police are a “continuing threat" to Lacson’s liberty and “defeat the very essence" of the CA ruling. “This issue which would not have arisen at all if the [Department of Justice] had just followed existent jurisprudence and the rules of court, then I think the senator would have surfaced already," said Poblador during the interview. Lacson has been in hiding since January 2010. Poblador cited Rule 39, Section 4 of the Rules of Court which says that interlocutory judgments “shall be enforceable after their rendition and shall not be stayed by an appeal taken therefrom." He also said that under Rule 117, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, when a criminal case or information is quashed, the accused must be immediately discharged. “There is no need for a separate order to quash the warrants, the accused must be discharged. All incidents related to the issuance of the arrest warrants are what we call interlocutory in character," Poblador said. Lacson to surface if… If the CA said that the warrant of arrest is not anymore in effect, he said Lacson might probably surface. The lawyer, however, could not confirm whether Lacson was in the country or not. He said he only communicates with the senator’s family. Poblador said that while he had advised Lacson to face the legal process, remaining in hiding was the senator’s “personal decision." “My advice to him is the same. You should face the legal process. But he has made a personal decision. And I doubt he will surface before this matter is clarified," he said. But he said he is confident that based on the Rules of Court and jurisprudence, “our position will be upheld." - with Sophia Dedace/KBK/RSJ/MRT, GMA News