Photo from Pexels | Mark Stebnicki
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
During his tenure of office or actual incumbency, the President may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the head of State, if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such.
It is elementary that incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or from being brought to court during the period of their incumbency and tenure.
In the case of Leila de Lima v. President Rodrigo Duterte (G.R. No. 227635, October 15, 2019), the Supreme Court reiterated the settled doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the head of State, if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such.
The Court held that is important that the President be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance of his official duties and functions. Unlike the legislative and judicial branch, only one constitutes the executive branch and anything which impairs his usefulness in the discharge of the many great and important duties imposed upon him by the constitution necessarily impairs the operation of the Government. However, this does not mean that the President is not accountable to anyone. Like any other official, he remains accountable to the people but he may be removed from office only in the mode provided by law and that is by impeachment.
In Maximo Soliven v. Ramon Makasiar (G.R. No. 82585, November 14, 1988), the Supreme Court explained that rationale for the grant to the President of the privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise of Presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance or distraction, considering that being the Chief Executive of the Government is a job that, aside from requiring all of the office holder’s time, also demands undivided attention.
However, it emphasized that this privilege of immunity from suit, pertains to the President by virtue of the office and may be invoked only by the holder of the office; not by any other person in the President’s behalf. Thus, an accused in a criminal case in which the President is complainant cannot raise the presidential privilege as a defense to prevent the case from proceeding against such accused. Moreover, there is nothing in our laws that would prevent the President from waiving the privilege. Thus, if so minded the President may shed the protection afforded by the privilege and submit to the court’s jurisdiction. The choice of whether to exercise the privilege or to waive it is solely the President’s prerogative. It is a decision that cannot be assumed and imposed by any other person.
As held in Bayan Muna Party-List Representatives, et al. v. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (G.R. 182734, January 10, 2023), presidential immunity does not hinge on the nature of the suit. Its purpose is not intended to immunize the president from liability or accountability but to assure that the exercise of his/her duties is free from any distractions. While indeed a case against the president can be handled by the OSG, any litigation, big or small, naturally serves as a distraction to a party-litigant. A litigant cannot simply leave the course and conduct of the proceedings entirely to his/her counsel. Simply put, the president’s immunity from suit has no qualification or restriction. The president cannot be sued while holding such office.
It must be noted that the presidential immunity from suit exists only in concurrence with the president’s incumbency. Conversely, this presidential privilege of immunity cannot be invoked by a non-sitting president even for acts committed during his or her tenure. Courts look with disfavor upon the presidential privilege of immunity, especially when it impedes the search for truth or impairs the vindication of a right. (Francis Saez v. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, G.R. No. 183533, September 25, 2012)
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.
