Bucatcat, Razor Uy (G03)

Cada, Shirley Marie (G03)

 Thesis Statement
The unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the state
and the official who acts illegally is not acting as such but
stands in the same footing as any other trespasser.
-Estrada v. Desierto
(2001)

Statement of the Problem

This immunity from suit is often abused by the President. In
the present administration there poses a question as to what
extent does this protect the said public official. This research
paper aims to examine the extent of Presidents immunity
from suit when an application of both Writ of Amparo and
Writ of Habeas data has been filed against him.
 Objectives:
This study aims to prove that:
The Writ of Amparo may be issued against the
President despite his Executive Immunity as a remedy
of the aggrieved party whose right to life, liberty and
security is violated or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or of a
private individual or entity.
The Writ of Habeas Data may be issued against the
President despite his Executive Immunity as a remedy
of the aggrieved party whose right to privacy in life,
liberty and security is violated or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or of a private individual or
entity engaged in: gathering, collecting, or storing of
data or information regarding the person family,
home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
 Significance of the Study
The study finds relevance upon the current
administration, President Rodrigo Duterte wherein
Senator Leila De Lima filed a petition for a Writ of
Habeas Data and Writ of Amparo against him because
of the attacks that President Duterte has launched
against her as a person and as a woman that the
cases would stand as a test against President
Dutertes Presidential immunity. But Atty. Rosario
Setias-Reyes, President of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), disagrees. Atty. Reyes said: "It will
be there only as long as he is sitting president. After
that, complaints can already be filed".
The De La Salle College of Law Dean Jose Manuel
Diokno stated that: The doctrine of presidential
immunity from suit cannot be used as a shield to
block a case like this which is really one of historical
and transcendental importance.
 Scope and Limitations
Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Data as applied
to Presidents Immunity from suit.

Methodology
The researchers will be employing a qualitative type
of study that will seek to address the extent of the
Presidents Immunity upon the application of the
Writ of Habeas Data and Writ of Amparo where it
covers violation made by public official upon the
right to privacy in life, liberty and security of a
person.
 ANALYSIS OF DATA
Presidency
natural born-citizen of the Philippines; a
registered voter; able to read and write; at least
40 years of age on the day of the election; and a
resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years
immediately preceding such election.
Term: 6 years.
Duties: to preserve and defend the Constitution;
execute its laws; do justice to every man; and
consecrate himself to the service of the Nation.
Sec. 2, Art. VII, The 1987 Constitution
Presidential Immunity
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.
- Soliven vs. Judge Makasiar
(1988)

Granted by the 1973 Constitution.

Executive immunity dates back to the cases of

governor generals
The doctrine of executive immunity in this
jurisdiction emerged as a case law. The privilege,
however, is now justified for different reasons:
1. First, the doctrine is rooted in the constitutional tradition
of separation of powers and supported by history.
2. Second, by reason of public convenience, the grant is to
assure the exercise of presidential duties and functions
free from any hindrance or distraction, considering that
the Chief Executive is a job that, aside from requiring all
of the office-holders time, also demands undivided
attention.
3. Third, on grounds of public policy, it was recognized that
the gains from discouraging official excesses might be
more than offset by the losses from diminished zeal.
Abuse of Presidential Privilege
The King himself should be under no man, but
under God and the law.
- Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of England from
1613 to 1616

Marcos administration
Limitations of Presidential Immunity
The scope of immunity has always been tied to the
"scope of . . . authority. The official immunity
doctrine seeks to reconcile two important
considerations -- "On the one hand, the protection
of the individual citizen against pecuniary damage
caused by oppressive or malicious action on the
part of officials of the Federal Government; and on
the other, the protection of the public interest by
shielding responsible governmental officers against
the harassment and inevitable hazards of vindictive
or ill-founded damage suits brought on account of
action taken in the exercise of their official
responsibilities."
- Doe v. McMillan (1973)
When a committee perverts its power, brings down on an
individual the whole weight of government for an illegal or
corrupt purpose, the reason for the immunity ends.
- Tenney vs. Brandhove (1951)

It will be anomalous to hold that immunity is an inoculation

from liability for unlawful acts and omissions. The rule is that
unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the State and the
officer who acts illegally is not acting as such but stands in the
same footing as any other trespasser.
- Estrada v. Desierto (2001)

When the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed

materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the
generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the
fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair
administration of criminal justice.
- U.S. v. Nixon (1974)
There are more reasons not to be sympathetic to
appeals to stretch the scope of executive immunity
in our jurisdiction:
The 1987 Constitution
Sandiganbayan as an anti-graft court
Office of the Ombudsman

Since this form of immunity is just a strand in the

doctrine of sovereign immunity, it should follow
that it should apply only to acts of the President
which are political in character, or which involve the
exercise of the functions or sovereignty. It should
not apply to acts which are in exercise of the
propriety functions of the government.
U.S. Supreme Court in the Nixon case had
emphasized that the extension of immunity to the
President is not automatic, but must involve a
balance of interests.

Immunity from suit of executive officials, being

only a judge-made law, has always varied in
application according to time and place.

Thus, the concept of Presidential immunity in the

Philippines should be limited to the lesser concept
functional immunity for the President and his
men.
State Accountability to Promote and
Protect Human Rights
If the U.S. Constitution has its Article One that
forbids Congress to make a law that will violate the
rights of the people, the 1987 Philippine
Constitution has its counterpart provisions found in
Sec. 11, Article II which commands that The State
values the dignity of every human person and
guarantees full respect for human rights; and
Article III, The Bill of Rights.
The new rules on the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data
under the Supreme Court A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC and
A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC respectively finds legal basis in
the constitutional provision Promulgate rules
concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights in relation to the expanded
meaning of judicial power which includes the duty of
the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of the Government.

No one is above the law must be upheld. Thus, even

the Chief Executive of the land should be subject to writ
of amparo if justice so requires. The immunity granted
by the Constitution to the President must not obstruct
the attainment of the amparos objective.
Highlights of the Writ of Amparo and
Writ of Habeas Data
The writs curative role is an acknowledgment that the
violation of the right to life, liberty, and security may be
caused not only by a public officials act, but also by his
omission.
-In the Matter of the Petition for the Writ of Amparo and
Habeas Data in favor of Noriel Rodriguez

The Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Data, are

innovative and responsive to peoples needs:

1. The writ of amparo is a remedy available to any

person whose right to life, liberty and security is
violated or threatened. The writ of habeas data is a
remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in
life, liberty or security is violated or threatened.
2. The writ of amparo and the writ of habeas data
cover both government officials and private
individuals or entities.
3. The petition for the writ of amparo may be filed
not only by the aggrieved party but also by any
concerned citizen, organization, association or
institution.
4. The petitioner, rich or poor, in a petition for the
writ of amparo, is exempted from the payment of
docket fee and other fees.
5. The amparo rejects traditional legal doctrines
like exhaustion of administrative remedies and
disallows public officials or employees to invoke
presumption that official duty has been regularly
performed to evade responsibility.
6. The amparo and habeas data forbid public
officials or employees from making blanket denials
of custody of victims of enforced disapperances
and from making blanket denials regarding the
possession or control of data or information subject
of the petition.
7. In amparo and habeas data, the court, justice
and judge may punish with imprisonment or fine a
respondent who commits contempt by making a
false return, or refusing to make a return or any
person who otherwise disobeys or resists a lawful
purpose or order of the court.
The Governor-General, like the judges of the courts
and the members of the Legislature, may not be
personally mulcted in civil damages for the
consequences of an act executed in the performance of
his official duties. The judiciary has full power to, and
will, when the matter is properly presented to it and the
occasion justly warrants it, declare an act of the
Governor-General illegal and void and place as nearly as
possible in status quo any person who has been
deprived his liberty or his property by such act. This
remedy is assured to every person, however humble or
of whatever country, when his personal or property
rights have been invaded, even by the highest authority
of the state.
- Forbes, etc. vs. Chuoco tiaco and Crossfield (1910)
 Recommendations and Conclusions
Writ of Amparo may be issued against the President
despite his Executive Immunity as a remedy of the
aggrieved party whose right to life, liberty and security
is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful
act or omission of a public official or of a private
individual or entity.

Writ of Habeas Data may be issued against the President

despite his Executive Immunity as a remedy of the
aggrieved party whose right to privacy in life, liberty and
security is violated or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged
in: gathering, collecting, or storing of data or
information regarding the person family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.
THANK YOU!
-Razor and Shirley