Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco on Friday renewed his call for the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to cancel the passport of former Ako Bicol Representative Zaldy Co, who has been implicated in the alleged multibillion-peso flood control corruption scandal.

Speaking at a press briefing held by the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI), Tiangco stressed that failure to act by the DFA could spark public outrage and erode confidence in the ongoing investigation.

“Let’s not test the people’s patience. Their sentiment is clear: Filipinos expect Co to be brought back,” Tiangco said. He questioned why government agencies, particularly the DFA, appeared to be reluctant to cancel Co’s passport, arguing that inaction could signal a tolerance for corruption.

This was not the first time Tiangco called on the DFA to act.

Earlier this week, House Speaker Bojie Dy urged newly appointed Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla to prevent Co from leaving the country while investigations continue.

Tiangco described the case as a “national security matter,” highlighting the alleged scope of irregularities in the flood control projects.

He said that prompt action was crucial not just for accountability, but also to reassure the public that no one is above the law. “Authorities should understand the urgency. This is about ensuring justice and transparency,” he said.

Legal constraints highlighted

Despite the political pressure, legal experts said the DFA cannot cancel a Philippine passport without a court order.

Bicol Saro Partylist Rep. Terry Ridon, a lawyer and chairman of the House Committee on Infrastructure, cited Sections 4 and 10 of the Philippine Passport Act of 1996 (RA 8239), explaining that passports of convicted criminals, fugitives, and suspected terrorists may only be revoked with judicial authorization.

“Section 10 is clear: a court order is required before the passport of a suspected criminal can be canceled. National security alone does not give the DFA this power,” Ridon said. He cautioned that bypassing the legal process could set a dangerous precedent and undermine constitutional protections.

Ridon emphasized that the rule of law must prevail. Any unilateral action by the DFA, he noted, could undermine the legitimacy of the investigation and erode public trust in government institutions.

The issue has highlighted a growing tension between political calls for immediate action and the legal safeguards that protect individual rights, even amid high-profile corruption probes.