Nowhere to run

The Philippine government might need to revisit claims that obtaining former Ako Bicol party list Rep. Zaldy Co’s sworn testimony or holding him to account is well-nigh impossible simply because he is now in Europe. Or that the absence of an extradition treaty with Portugal, where he has obtained a passport, ends the matter. These are legally shallow excuses. International law offers at least two alternatives, and potentially complementary, pathways: the apostille system and the European Arrest Warrant (EAW).

Begin with the apostille. An apostille certifies the authenticity of the signature on a public document, the capacity of the person signing it, and the seal or stamp it bears. A sworn statement signed by Co before a Portuguese notary is a public document. Once certified by apostille, it becomes admissible before Philippine tribunals, including the Senate blue ribbon committee, the Ombudsman, or any special investigative body.

Contrary to repeated claims, Co’s statement does not need to be sworn before the Philippine embassy. Reports indicate that he himself recently filed a pleading with the Supreme Court bearing an apostille issued in Sweden. But testimony is only one part of accountability. The more consequential issue is prosecution.

The disclosure that a former congressman implicated in the flood control scandal holds a Portuguese passport has stumped the Department of Justice (DOJ). No extradition treaty, the argument goes, means Europe becomes a sanctuary.

That conclusion is wrong because it misunderstands modern European criminal law. If the charges include money laundering, a Portuguese passport is not a shield.

Money laundering is not prosecuted like graft or plunder. It is an autonomous offense. Jurisdiction depends not on where public funds were stolen but on where illicit proceeds were moved, concealed, invested, or enjoyed. If even part of the proceeds passed through European banks, shell companies, trusts, or real estate, Europe has jurisdiction. Nationality becomes legally irrelevant. We can seek help from Spain, the only EU state with an extradition treaty with us. Or from Portugal itself.

Both, like all EU member states, enforce strict antimoney laundering laws precisely to address cross-border corruption and organized crime. European prosecutors do not need a Philippine conviction. They need credible evidence that criminal proceeds entered their financial system. That evidentiary threshold is far lower than many in Manila assume.

Why does Co hold a Portuguese passport? Simple. Portugal prohibits extradition of nationals. As the noose tightens, he might retreat to his Portuguese mansion. But he might have overlooked Article 33 of the Portuguese constitution recognizing exceptions for crimes prosecuted under international treaties, particularly those involving transnational organized crime. This is where the United Nations Convention against Corruption (Uncac) and the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (Untoc) come into play. They bind the Philippines and Portugal and provide operational mechanisms for prosecuting money laundering committed by organized criminal groups.

The path forward is clear. First, Philippine prosecutors must file airtight money laundering cases at home, grounded in transaction-level evidence. Then, the Anti-Money Laundering Council must activate cooperation with European financial intelligence units to trace funds, identify assets, and establish a European nexus.

Third, the DOJ must transmit a focused mutual legal assistance request to Portugal invoking Uncac and Untoc, seeking bank records, beneficial ownership data, corporate filings, and property titles. But what if Co hops from one European country to another to evade prosecution?

This is no longer 1960s Europe. A domestic arrest warrant–issued by a Portuguese or Spanish court for money laundering–may be converted into an EAW, a judicial surrender mechanism binding across the EU. Money laundering is on the EAW’s list of serious offenses. Police in every EU state are obliged to arrest and surrender him to the issuing state. Borderless Europe is not so borderless after all.

See Also

The Jekyll and Hyde dyad

Once arrested under an EAW, Co is surrendered to Portugal or Spain. The DOJ proceeds through mutual legal assistance and treaty-based transfer of criminal proceedings (Uncac, Article 21, Untoc, Article 47). But the DOJ needs to make sure pending treaty requirements are met.

The real risk is not European law but Philippine hesitation. European prosecutors cannot compensate for weak or pretended case-building.

The flood control scandal is a test of whether the Philippines understands modern anticorruption enforcement. Today, justice runs through financial systems, shared jurisdiction, and legal persistence. Through the apostille and the European arrest warrant, the Philippines can still catch Co—and with him, those who truly masterminded the scheme.

—————-

Melissa Loja and Romel Bagares are independent Filipino scholars of international law.