G.R. No. 227635 , October 15, 2019
Leila M. De Lima, Petitioner, vs. President Rodrigo R. Duterte, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Senator Leila M. de Lima filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data against respondent President Rodrigo R. Duterte as the sole respondent. The petition sought to enjoin the President from committing acts allegedly violative of her right to life, liberty, and security. The controversy stemmed from President Duterte’s public statements against Senator de Lima, a vocal critic of his administration’s anti-illegal drug campaign. The statements, made in August 2016, included threats to destroy her, accusations of corruption and immorality, allegations of involvement in illegal drugs, and disclosures about her personal and intimate life. Senator de Lima argued these statements violated her rights and constituted a threat due to the President’s claim of surveillance “with the help of another country.” She contended the President was not immune from this suit because his actions were unofficial, unlawful, and outside his official conduct. The Office of the Solicitor General sought the petition’s dismissal, arguing the sitting President enjoys absolute immunity from all suits, including habeas data petitions, based on public policy and jurisprudence, and that the statements were made in relation to his duty to execute the laws.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data against President Rodrigo R. Duterte as the sole respondent is viable given the principle of presidential immunity from suit.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The Court held that the President of the Philippines is immune from suit during his tenure. This immunity is absolute, covering all suits, whether civil or criminal, and extends to petitions for the writs of amparo and habeas data. The Court traced the doctrine’s roots to public policy, the constitutional design of a strong executive, and the necessity to protect the President from harassment and distraction that would impede the discharge of official duties. Jurisprudence, including Soliven v. Makasiar and David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, consistently affirms this immunity. The Court rejected the argument that immunity applies only to official acts, noting that determining whether an act is official would itself require an inquiry that could harass the President. The immunity is a personal privilege that the President may waive, but in this case, it was invoked through the arguments of the Office of the Solicitor General. Consequently, naming the incumbent President as the sole respondent in the petition constitutes a fatal defect warranting its dismissal.