US case can spoil Lacson’s 2004 bid

They couldn’t nail Al Capone for murder and racketeering, but they got him for tax evasion. Thus does California lawyer Rodel Rodis liken the $3-million civil damages his client won against Sen. Panfilo Lacson.

Hounded by court charges of multiple murder and drug trafficking in Manila, Lacson has been able to stall trial by arguing technical grounds. State lawyers have accused him of stashing secret wealth in US banks, but the US justice department has sent scant evidence so far. In the meantime, he has declared intention to run for President in 2004. The $3-million case could spoil that bid.

To enforce its Jan. 10 award of $3,031,262 to aggrieved PNP supplier Blanquita Pelaez, the California superior court ordered Lacson three days later to disclose all his assets and income sources.

Required for inspection and copying are:

Statements for the past five years of all bank accounts; a list of real property under his name, or that of his wife Alice de Perio or any agent; registrations of vehicles owned in the US in the last five years; bookkeepings of all businesses he owns or has shares in; writings of payments, salaries, bonuses and fees due him; insurance policies and trusts with him as beneficiary; transfers of any property in the last five years; references of debts owed to him; writings affecting his or his wife’s rights over any real property; trusts made in the last five years; writings of persons claiming he owes them money; list of all assets; explanations of the terms of current businesses; cancelled checks executed in the last five years; stock certificates, including stock and minutes books; and documents on current debts; and

The demanded papers pertain to Lacson’s holdings in RP, the US and elsewhere.

Lacson had ignored the civil suits, arguing that he was never served the summonses properly under RP laws. The US court ruled otherwise, noting that the very pleadings of his lawyers Fortun Narvasa and Salazar were proof enough of his receipt of several summonses.

When the final verdict came out Jan. 10, the lawyers told the press that Lacson would continue to ignore it. Rodis says Lacson could be cited for contempt and a warrant issued for his arrest. More than that, Rodis says, the disclosure order would enable him to extract documents from US banks. If he is able to show proof of Lacson’s bank deposits, the court could order them transferred to Pelaez.

That would have political implications. It would show that Lacson has US accounts after all, something he had initially denied in the Senate and the press but later took back when the FBI sent Manila evidence to the contrary. Rodis’s discoveries, while aimed to recompense his client, could be used by Lacson’s accusers as proof that he is unworthy to be President.

At the very least, a political partymate of Lacson says, Rodis’s moves could scare away campaign contributors who’d feel Lacson’s kitty unsafe in RP or the US. Worse, these could lead to criminal charges in Manila for money laundering, nondeclaration of assets, and perjury.

Of the $3,031,262 Lacson is ordered to pay Pelaez, $2 million is for slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The damages arose from his calling Pelaez "scam artist na, smuggler pa" in a talk with Filipino community leaders in Alameda county in Sept. 2001. (See Gotcha, 20 Jan. 2003.) Pelaez charged that Lacson had marred her reputation as a defense contractor and caused her deep pain, for which she lost income. Under US law, a visitor is as liable as a citizen for breaches committed on US soil.

The third million is for intentional interference in business relations. Pelaez had accused Lacson in Dec. 2001 of arm-twisting her in 1999, when he was still PNP chief, to sue 123 officers who approved her P15-million contract to supply 41,000 handcuffs made by Smith & Wesson. She swore in an affidavit and in court that Lacson wanted to replace the officers with his loyalists. When she resisted, Lacson got even by delaying payment of the police paraphernalia she had delivered two years earlier. Pelaez’s 1996 appointment as Smith & Wesson agent was made in her Alameda home-county. Thus, while she dealt with the PNP and the AFP in Manila, the California court took jurisdiction of her complaint from where she holds business office.

The loose change of $31,262 is for sales commission of $1 for each handcuff. Pelaez was never able to collect such commission from Smith & Wesson. Rodis says that, although Lacson now claims the deal was dirty, the latter had ordered 80-percent payment to the company sometime Oct. 2000 when he was still PNP chief. "If it was anomalous, why did he pay?" Rodis asks. "He ordered only 80 percent, though. My client couldn’t get her share. Her Alameda appointment as sales agent states that commissions are contingent on full payment of supplies."

The California court also directed Lacson to appear before Judge Harry Sheppard on Mar. 5. "If you fail to appear at the time and place specified in this order," the court said, "you may be subject to arrest and punishment for contempt."

Lacson has told reporters he will ignore this too. But for how long? Any aspirant for RP President must get Uncle Sam’s blessings somehow. In Nov. 2000, at the height of nationwide outrage from Chavit Singson’s exposes on jueteng payoffs, Lacson flew to Washington with a PMA ex-classmate to present himself to two congressmen and a senator as the best replacement for Joseph Estrada.

If he draws an arrest warrant, his partymate says, Lacson could be blacklisted in Washington circles. On the other hand, if he pays up the $3 million – over P150 million – voters will ask where he got the money. If he chooses to contest the US court verdict, he will have to retain a lawyer for $50,000 for starters, Rodis says, for which voters will still ask questions.

Oh, well, that’s the way the cookie crumbles.

* * *

You can e-mail comments to [email protected]