SENATE President Pro Tempore Panfilo “Ping” Lacson on Friday said government lawyers are considering asking the Supreme Court to revisit its recently clarified fugitive disentitlement doctrine, following claims by former congressman Elizaldy “Zaldy” Co that the rule does not apply to his case.
Lacson, who chairs the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, said the Office of the Solicitor General may find it prudent to seek further clarification from the high court, particularly in relation to high-profile fugitives facing serious criminal charges.
“Paging SolGen: It may be wise to ask the Court to revisit the ‘fugitive disentitlement doctrine’ in GR 259337 dated Nov. 25, 2025 that refined Miranda vs. Tuliao in relation to the cases of Zaldy Co and Atong Ang,” Lacson said in a post on X.
He was reacting to arguments raised by Co’s camp, which is challenging the Office of the Ombudsman’s resolution that led to the filing of graft and malversation charges against him before the Sandiganbayan.
Co’s lawyers contend that the fugitive disentitlement doctrine should not apply to him because no judgment has yet been rendered. They argue that Co is neither an appellant nor an escapee or bail jumper, asserting that his status does not fall within the doctrine’s scope.
Last December, the Sandiganbayan declared Co a “fugitive from justice” after repeated failures to secure his appearance despite the issuance of arrest warrants.
Co is wanted by law enforcement authorities and by the Blue Ribbon Committee in connection with alleged corruption involving anomalous flood control projects.
Lacson also pointed to the relevance of the doctrine in the case of businessman and gambling operator Charlie “Atong” Ang, who is being sought by authorities in connection with the disappearance of several cockfighting enthusiasts, or “sabungeros.”
In a landmark ruling on Nov. 25, 2025 (GR 259337), the Supreme Court refined the long-standing doctrine established in Miranda vs. Tuliao (GR 158763, March 31, 2006), which allowed accused persons to seek certain forms of judicial relief even while remaining beyond the reach of Philippine courts.
The Court clarified that a fugitive from justice is not limited to one who flees after conviction, but includes an accused who evades arrest after being charged, with the essential element being intent to evade prosecution or punishment.
The Court further ruled that when a warrant of arrest cannot be served because the accused is outside Philippine jurisdiction, the trial court may, either upon motion or motu proprio, assess the circumstances and declare the accused a fugitive from justice.
Once declared a fugitive, the accused loses legal standing in court, is barred from participating in proceedings and cannot seek judicial relief. The court stressed that standing may only be restored if the accused voluntarily surrenders or is arrested.
It also emphasized that jurisdiction over the accused is not acquired merely through the filing of pleadings or participation.
Lacson said recent legal maneuverings by Co’s camp underscore the need for the government, through the Solicitor General, to consider seeking a more definitive ruling from the Supreme Court to prevent fugitives.
Unresolved ambiguities in the application of the doctrine could undermine accountability efforts, particularly in cases involving large-scale corruption and organized criminal activity, he said.