Palace twits Lacson: Lawyer Duterte knows the Constitution

MANILA, Philippines — President Duterte knows the Constitution and is in fact trained in law, Malacañang officials said yesterday to counter Sen. Panfilo Lacson’s suggestion that the Chief Executive may have missed some provisions when he insisted the Senate should keep out of foreign affairs.

Presidential spokesman Harry Roque Jr. and chief presidential legal adviser Salvador Panelo separately criticized Lacson over his statements following the President’s remarks about the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) in his public address last Monday night.

Lacson, in his Twitter account, advised Duterte to read the 1987 Constitution, particularly Article VII Section 21, following the President’s decision to call out the senator for likening the VFA review to extortion. Panelo said this was a “flawed narrative.”

The provision states: “No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”

Corazon Aquino, during her presidency, had pushed for the extension of the bases agreement with the US. The Senate, however, rejected her appeal and voted to shut down the US bases by 1992.

Duterte said the US must pay if it wishes to continue the VFA, which he wants abrogated.

“It is amusing to witness a non-lawyer lawmaker advise the President, who is learned and trained in law, about a provision in our basic charter,” Panelo said. “In treading in unfamiliar terrain, Senator Lacson necessarily and mistakenly believes that he has a role in the country’s present policy on the VFA.”

Roque maintained that Duterte is the chief architect of the country’s foreign policy, a doctrine backed by many Supreme Court rulings. He cited jurisprudence on the cases of Pimentel vs. the Executive Secretary, Bayan vs. Zamora and Salonga vs. Executive Secretary.

The Senate role is limited to concurrence to treaties, Roque said, adding the VFA is not a treaty since it had no separate concurrence from senators.

Panelo took Lacson to task, adding the constitutional provision deals with conditions on how an international agreement becomes valid and effective.

“While he is free to express his thoughts on any matter, we wish to educate him that his citation is not applicable to the present discussions on the VFA, which is currently in force,” he said.

“To be fair to non-lawyers, a plain reading of the constitutional provision will immediately lead them to that understanding – that senators have a role in prospective international agreements, not in existing ones. No wonder Senator Lacson found refuge in such provision,” Panelo said.

Panelo argued that the ongoing talks about the VFA fall under foreign relations, of which the President, as clearly expressed by the Constitution, is the chief architect.

“Not only is he the Chief Executive and the commander-in-chief, he is the head of state as well, who can end diplomatic ties with any country at will when national interest so requires,” he said, citing the case of Saguisag vs. Executive Secretary Ochoa.

Panelo said the only official participation of the Senate in international agreements is when such needs Senate concurrence.