De Limas TEST CASE vs.

Dutertes IMMUNITY FROM

SUIT
De Lima, accompanied by supporters and women leaders, lodged
a 26-page petition for writ of habeas data against Duterte on
Monday, November 7.
This case presents a novel issue of transcendental importance:
Can a sitting President wage a personal vendetta against
petitioner and use the resources of his powerful office to crucify
her as a woman, a human being, and a duly elected senator in
violation of her right to privacy in life, liberty and security?
Immunity from Suit
There is no provision in the Constitution clothing the president
with immunity from suit. The 1973 Constitution had a specific
provision guaranteeing the presidents immunity. This provision
is the Article VII, Section 7, of the 1973 Constitution which states
that, The President shall be immune from suit during his
tenure. However, the 1987 Constitution did not preserve this
provision.
While such doctrine is not specified in the 1987 Constitution, it
has strong foundation in jurisprudence which, by virtue of Article
8 of the Civil Code, forms a part of the legal system of the
Philippines. The subsistence of this doctrine under the 1987
Constitution was confirmed in Soliven vs. Judge Makasiar
which assumed that indeed the president, Cory Aquino in this
case, enjoys immunity. The Court said:
The 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-holders time, also
demands undivided attention. But 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 Presidents
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.
The writ is a remedy for a person "whose right to privacy in life,
liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or
1

omission such as gathering, collecting or storing of data or

information
regarding
the
person,
family,
home
and
correspondence of the aggrieved party."
De Lima said this is the first time that the doctrine of presidential
immunity from suit would be tested, citing the blatant abuse
allegedly committed by the President.
De Lima has been accused by Duterte of alleged involvement in
the illegal drug trade at the New Bilibid Prison, which she
vehemently denied.
Aside from the petitions for writ of Amparo and habeas data, the
senator said she was preparing other charges against the
President but she refused to disclose them yet.
Similar cases vs. Arroyo dismissed
In 2011, the SC dismissed writ of habeas data petitions filed
against former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo by Noriel
Rodriguez, a member of a peasant group from Cagayan.
"The petition is dismissed with respect to President Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo on account of her presidential immunity from
suit," said the court decision promulgated on November 15,
2011.
How the Alleged Violation Started
Duterte's grudge against her dates back to the time when she
investigated the former Davao City mayor for his links to the
vigilante group Davao Death Squad when she was Commission
on Human Rights chairperson.
President Duterte previously tagged de Lima as responsible for
the proliferation of illegal drugs inside the New Bilibid Prison
(NBP) when she was then Justice Secretary. He has also accused
de Lima of screwing her driver, who was also accused of
involvement in the drug trade and likened her to an x-rated
artist.
"He has accused her of 'screwing her driver,' 'pumping,' and
playing with a man's genitals. He has likened her to an 'x-rated
artist' and claimed that she has a 'propensity for sex,'" the De
Lima camp said.

"He has threatened her that he 'will destroy her in public,' that
she 'is finished' and has vowed that she 'will rot in jail," the
petition read.
De Lima, however, repeatedly denied these allegations claiming
that President Duterte was destroying her as revenge for her
intention to prove the Presidents involvement in the so-called
vigilante group, Davao Death Squad (DDS) and allowing alleged
extrajudicial killings related to the current intensified anti-illegal
drug campaign.
The senator's camp claimed that the president has repeatedly
subjected her to "crude personal attacks" involving the
publication of her alleged private affairs.
De Limas Contention Duterte is not Immune
Diokno argued that presidential immunity could not apply to
Duterte's tirades against De Lima because these were committed
outside his official functions.
I am suing Rodrigo Roa Duterte because of his shocking,
disgusting and revolting actions and statements against me
statements that have nothing to do with his job as President,
even if he continues to use and abuse his position to pursue his
personal desire to punish me. De Lima
The verbal attacks on petitioners womanhood and threats on
her person are not covered by presidential immunity from suit
because they are not the official acts of the President. They
constitute the unlawful, unofficial conduct that have nothing to
do with the Presidents duties and responsibilities, her petition
said.
De Lima wants the High Court to:
Stop Duterte and his representatives from collecting
information about her private life "outside the realm of
legitimate public concern"
Order Duterte to reveal the foreign country, which he said
helped him listen in on the senator's conversations, and his
sources of information about her private life
Order the deletion, destruction, or rectification of such data
or information
Enjoining the respondent from making public statements
that a) malign her as a woman and degrade her dignity as a
human being; b) sexually discriminate against her; c)
describe or publicize her alleged sexual misconduct; d)
3

constitute psychological violence against her; and e)

otherwise violate her rights or are contrary to law, good
morals, good customs, public policy and/or public interest.
Evidence Adduced
A compact disc containing video and audio recordings of verbal
attacks hurled by Duterte against De Lima in public was
submitted as evidence to the Supreme Court by De Lima's camp.
De Lima also submitted an assessment report made by
psychologist Dr. Sylvia Estrada Claudio, which states the
psychological effect inflicted by Duterte's acts and utterances
against her.
De Lima's camp filed sexual harassment, psychological violence,
and slut shaming allegations against Duterte.
De Lima said these attacks and threats violate Republic Act
(R.A.) Nos. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials) and 9710 (Magna Carta of Women).
De Lima said she would also file cases at the Office of the
Ombudsman such as violation of anti-graft, violation of conduct
of public officials, disbarment, civil actions for damages, among
others.
Response to De Limas Claim
In a phone interview with CNN Philippines, Atty. Rosario SetiasReyes, President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
said a sitting President should never face civil or criminal
charges, even if he is proven guilty of a crime.
"Immunity from suit does not mean immunity from liability,"
Reyes said. "It will be there only as long as he is sitting
president. After that, complaints can already be filed," she
added.
Malacaang said the senator was portraying herself as a victim
and using her gender to divert attention from the illegal drug
allegations against her.
De Lima is apparently playing the gender card as a shield
against mounting evidence of her ties with high-profile drug
lords, said presidential spokesperson Ernesto Abella.

President Dutertes response: "If there's a case filed already, [e]

di hayaan natin,"
Prepared by:
Ronick Decin
Eryl Isabelle Yu