Lawmakers oppose immunity for Marcoses

Opposition congressmen are against President Duterte’s proposal for Congress to grant the Marcoses immunity from criminal prosecution in exchange for returning part of their alleged ill-gotten wealth.

“It is well settled in Philippine jurisprudence that criminal liability is not subject to compromise. In Chavez vs Presidential Commission on Good Government (Dec. 9, 1998), the Supreme Court voided the

challenged compromise agreement insofar as it granted the Marcoses immunity from criminal prosecution,” Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said.

“A culprit who returns what he has stolen is not liberated from criminal prosecution. It is a mockery of justice and an insult to the aggrieved sovereign people to exempt the Marcoses from criminal culpability in exchange for a few pieces of stolen gold bars or even for their entire ill-gotten hoard,” he said.

“A criminal must pay for his crime despite his having belatedly returned the object of his transgression,” he said.

He pointed out that the grant of immunity from criminal prosecution is the “hidden agenda” behind Duterte’s appeal for Congress to pass a law authorizing him to negotiate with the Marcoses for the surrender of their alleged ill-gotten wealth.

Lagman’s opposition colleague Tom Villarin of Akbayan said the Marcoses are facing 248 cases in the Philippines and abroad in connection with their wealth.

He said the Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that all assets of the Marcos family that were beyond their accumulated legal earnings of a little over $300,000 were ill-gotten.

He said the Marcoses were believed to have amassed an estimated P10 billion in wealth.

“Enacting a law giving immunity to the Marcoses would give a wrong signal that committing a crime will pay off in the end as justice is negotiable by the powers that be,” he added.

“The premise laid by President Duterte that he ‘accepts’ the explanation by the Marcoses that the wealth was not ill-gotten as they just held it in trust for us is a gross distortion of law and history,” Villarin stressed.

‘Crazy idea’

Another opposition congressman, Teodoro Baguilat Jr. of Ifugao, said the proposed grant of immunity “is a crazy idea that is not in any of Philippine legal principles.”

“If the President’s idea pushes through, let’s abandon all concepts of law and justice. I can steal anything from anyone, make money out of it for a while, then offer to return and get amnesty for it. Heck, I may even be buried as a hero,” he said.

“But this is more than just the money. It’s about justice and accountability for the crimes against the people during martial law – the killings, the torture, the suppression of freedoms and the degradation of our democratic institutions,” he said.

“Is the President proposing that with one legislative fiat, everything will be forgotten?” Baguilat asked.

For their part, Duterte’s leftist congressmen-allies joined the opposition in going against the proposed grant of immunity for the Marcoses.

“We will oppose this move every step of the way,” Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Zarate said.

“Justice must be served and the Marcoses should be punished for what they did to our country and people during martial law. This is not just an issue of returning their ill-gotten wealth back to the Filipino people but of obtaining justice as well,” he said.

Another administration ally, Harry Roque of party-list Kabayan, said a law granting immunity to the Marcos family alone would be unconstitutional, as it would violate the Charter’s equal protection provision.

“We cannot legislate just to accommodate the Marcoses. We can probably legislate, put it in very generic language and made applicable to all who want to confess and who want to return stolen assets of the government, and give them a period. So this will be a form of amnesty,” he said.

“I think the President is toying with the idea na, just to put an end to this, let’s come up with a law that will afford them (Marcoses) immunity in exchange for a compromise,” he theorized.

“Although that law is possible, it is still susceptible to constitutional challenge because it is not one of the powers expressly enumerated to belong either to the executive or to Congress,” the former UP law professor explained.

“All laws must not be inimical to public policy and good morals,” he stressed.

“So some could question an immunity on the basis of a settlement as contrary to good policy and good morals,” he added.

Rep. Alfredo Garbin Jr. of party-list Ako Bicol, who is a lawyer, said, “Congress cannot pass a law that can only be repealed later.”

But House Minority Leader Danilo Suarez and Rep. Lito Atienza of party-list Buhay said there is no harm in trying, especially now that government needs help in pump priming the economy with President Duterte’s build, build, build program. –