Blaming Duterte

IN the recent decision (July 2024) of the Supreme Court of the United States in Trump v. United States, it was held that "under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and reclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts."

In our jurisdiction, under De Lima v. Duterte (GR 227635, Oct. 15, 2019), it was ruled that "the concept of immunity from suit originated elsewhere, the ratification of the 1981 constitutional amendments and the 1987 Constitution made our version of presidential immunity unique. Section 15, Article VII of the 1973 Constitution, as amended, provided for immunity at two distinct points in time: the first sentence of the provision related to immunity during the tenure of the president, and the second provided for immunity thereafter. At this juncture, we need only concern ourselves with immunity during the president's tenure, as this case involves the incumbent president. As the framers of our Constitution understood it, which view has been upheld by relevant jurisprudence, the president is immune from suit during his tenure."