MANILA – Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo “Ping” Lacson said the government’s response to the International Criminal Court (ICC) charges against Senators Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa and Christopher Lawrence “Bong” Go must prioritize the Constitution above all else, including personal or political loyalties.

Lacson said the Senate retains its moral authority as long as it strictly follows the 1987 Constitution, particularly Article VI, Section 11, which provides immunity from arrest for lawmakers under certain conditions.

“If we violate the law of the land, we have nothing to discuss. We are complying with the provision of the Constitution, which is the fundamental law of the land. It is clear that there is immunity from arrest if the penalty is six years and below, and Congress is in session,” he said in English and Filipino in an interview on One News.

Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution states: “(a) Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.”

The ICC earlier identified Go and dela Rosa as among the alleged “co-perpetrators” of former President Rodrigo Duterte in connection with the previous administration’s anti-drug campaign.

Lacson noted that it remains uncertain whether the two senators would qualify for immunity from arrest, as the ICC’s confirmation of charges hearing for the former president is scheduled for Feb. 23 to 27.

He said that until the possible penalty is clarified, it cannot yet be determined if the constitutional protection applies.

Until then, he said it is not clear whether Go and dela Rosa would face imprisonment of six years and below. If it does, he said, “our Constitution can be invoked. This is not just any other law but the Constitution.”

Lacson also pointed out that the meaning of “in session” under the Constitution has no definitive interpretation at present, but may be understood to mean that immunity from arrest could cease once Congress adjourns sine die on June 6.

Addressing criticisms that his position favors certain colleagues, Lacson argued that a politician driven purely by political interest might even support their arrest to alter Senate leadership dynamics.

“If this were about politics and not the Constitution, for selfish reasons, one could argue for their turnover just to secure the leadership of Senate President Vicente Sotto III. But that is not what I’m fighting for. It’s the Constitution, based on consultation with legal experts,” he said.

He also responded to lawyers who questioned his stance, saying he ensures that his legal views are reviewed by experts before he speaks publicly.

“For the record, before I put forward a legal opinion during media interviews or committee hearings, I do it in consultation with legal experts, even retired SC justices on the subject matter for discussion. This way, I trust that I’m talking more sense than ordinary lawyers,” he said in a post on X.

Lacson emphasized that the Supreme Court remains the ultimate authority on the issue.

“I’m not saying I’m correct but I will not concede that I am wrong and they are right. The Supreme Court has not ruled on this, and there is no legal precedent on this matter,” he added.