26/09/2025
EDITORIAL | Parliamentary Courtesy Cannot Shield Corruption – Lacson Must Stop Protecting the Powerful
OPTIC Politics | September 25, 2025
Parliamentary courtesy has its place in the rituals of governance—a polite nod between coequal chambers. It is meant to preserve dignity, not serve as a shield for corruption. Yet today, it is being weaponized, and shockingly, by Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson himself, to protect public officials from accountability. His invocation of “inter-parliamentary courtesy” to avoid summoning Rep. Zaldy Co to the Senate hearings on flood control projects in Bulacan is not prudence—it is a calculated act of obstruction.
Lacson is handling this case not as a guardian of justice but as a political tactician, carefully tiptoeing around the real scandal to avoid confronting powerful figures. He claims that Co is “welcome to appear voluntarily,” yet refuses to compel him, even though multiple testimonies directly implicate Co in the alleged siphoning of billions from flood control projects. Former DPWH engineers Brice Hernandez and Jaypee Mendoza have openly testified that illicit payments were delivered to Co’s residences and hotels on his instruction. And still, Lacson sits on his hands, citing tradition instead of fulfilling his constitutional duty.
This is not leadership; this is cowardice dressed in parliamentary jargon. Courtesy, in Lacson’s hands, has become a shield for corruption, a convenient excuse to avoid confronting entrenched power. If this principle is applied consistently, then former House Speaker Martin Romualdez—whose name has surfaced repeatedly in these hearings—would also be untouchable. The Senate, under Lacson’s stewardship, risks becoming impotent, paralyzed by ritual while the nation bleeds.
The Philippine Constitution is clear: public office is a public trust. Every peso stolen, every mismanaged project, every ignored infrastructure plan is a violation of that trust. The Senate’s duty is to hold officials accountable. Lacson’s refusal to summon Co transforms parliamentary courtesy into a tool for evasion, a perversion of principle, and a betrayal of the Filipino people.
Millions of Filipinos are exposed to deadly floods while billions in public funds allegedly vanish into private hands. And Lacson watches, hiding behind courtesy, failing to summon a lawmaker whose actions—if allegations hold—directly harm the nation. This is not oversight; this is complicity. It is a dereliction of constitutional responsibility, and it undermines every oath of office sworn in the Senate.
The choice is stark: the Senate can either be a fortress of truth or a sanctuary for cowards. Lacson’s handling of Zaldy Co demonstrates a preference for the latter, a choice that history will judge harshly. The Senate must summon Co. It must compel testimony. It must demand accountability. Anything less is surrender. Anything less is betrayal.
The Filipino people do not eat courtesy. They demand transparency, justice, and action. Lacson’s polite gestures cannot feed the citizens drowning in corruption and mismanagement. Courtesy is a tradition; accountability is law. When the two collide, courtesy must yield. Lacson must choose between defending ritual or defending the nation. So far, he has chosen poorly.
The Senate must act. The Constitution demands it. The people demand it. And history will remember those who chose courage and those who chose cover-up. Senator Lacson’s handling of Zaldy Co risks placing him firmly in the wrong camp—on the side of evasion, not justice.
