SC orders gov’t to submit position on Duterte’s immunity
The Supreme Court (SC) has acted with caution on the petition of Sen. Leila de Lima against President Duterte that challenged the well-established doctrine of presidential immunity from suit.
Veering away from the usual procedures, the high court did not immediately require the President to submit his comment as lone respondent in the writ of habeas data petition.
Instead, the SC decided to first require De Lima and the Office of the Solicitor General to submit their respective memoranda on the President’s immunity.
Specifically, it wanted the petitioner and the top government counsel to explain their positions on the issue of “whether the President of the Republic of the Philippines, as sole respondent in this case, is immune from the suit including this one.”
De Lima and the OSG were given non-extendible period of 10 days from notice to comply with the order.
In a press conference, SC spokesman Theodore Te explained that the high tribunal considered the issue of presidential immunity as a “prejudicial question to be first resolved before the court decides whether to require him to comment or not pursuant to the rule on the writ of habeas data.”
Te also stressed that the court made the action “without necessarily giving due course to the petition.”
It was not clear, however, why the order covered De Lima when the issue was already tackled in her petition.
The embattled lawmaker, who has been tagged in the illegal drug trade in New Bilibid Prison by the President and subjected to congressional investigation, asked the high court on Monday to issue a writ of habeas data stopping the President from using government resources in his “personal vendetta” against her.
De Lima alleged that Duterte violated Republic Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials) and R.A. 9710 (Magna Carta for Women) in his actions against her.
The presidential immunity from suits has been raised before the high court previously during the term of former president and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and the SC consistently upheld such well- established doctrine.
Boundaries
Opposition Rep. Edcel Lagman of Albay said “there should be limits to presidential immunity” and that the SC could establish its parameters.
Lagman made the statement in reaction to the habeas data case filed by De Lima against Duterte.
The Albay lawmaker said immunity should shield a sitting president from being distracted in doing his job by lawsuits but it should not mean “immunity from indiscretion.”
Lagman said De Lima should be commended for testing this constitutional principle. “This principle is not sacrosanct. It certainly can be challenged. And what Senator De Lima did is a welcome move,” he said.
Another opposition congressman, Tom Villarin of party-list group Akbayan, said the President “has been attacking Sen. De Lima as a private person and a woman.”
“We in Akbayan condemn such attacks,” he said.
He said the habeas data case would provide the SC an opportunity “to establish a check- and- balance system on presidential immunity.”
Villarin added that he agreed with Lagman that the immunity from suit being enjoyed by an incumbent president should not be absolute.
Villarin pointed out that the high court should afford private citizens with a redress mechanism in case of presidential abuses.
For his part, Northern Samar Rep. Raul Daza said the De Lima test case “is something new, something novel.”
“I think the Supreme Court should act carefully,” he said.
De Lima, for her part, advised Malacañang to study her petition before accusing her of “making noise” to divert attention away from her alleged drug links.
In a statement, De Lima said Presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella missed the entire point of her petition, which was meant to seek relief against the violations she suffered as a person.
“I have nothing to hide and much less do I have any cause to deny any alleged involvement with illegal drug trade or with any of its so-called drug lords that this administration has repeatedly and desperately insisted I have,” De Lima said.
“The way our criminal justice system works – or is supposed to work – is that the burden of proving the guilt of a person belongs to the prosecution. Allegations unsubstantiated by any credible proof – meaning, other than the testimony of drug convicts and so- called ‘ witnesses’ with axes to grind and other personal interests in destroying me – cannot touch, much less destroy, my innocence,” she added.
De Lima told Abella that he should “display a better understanding of, and more regard for, the basic protections set forth in our Constitution upon which the workings of our justice system is founded.”
Instead of attacking her again, De Lima urged Abella to help elevate the discourse about the critical issues affecting the nation by first carefully reading the full text of her petition and the attached evidence.
“As for me, I stand by the strength of my legal arguments, and I’m confi dent that the Supreme Court would see the merits of my case. No one can deny the legitimate issues I have raised in my petition. They are adequately documented and supported by verifi able facts,” De Lima said.
“Secretary Abella should not worry how I play my cards. If fighting for my constitutional rights to privacy in life, liberty and security is playing the gender card, then I got aces up my sleeve,” she added.
–