Associate Justice Marvic Leonen has called the Supreme Court’s ruling denying Senator Leila de Lima’s petition for a writ of habeas data against President Duterte as double standard in the guise of “presidential immunity.”
(PNA / FILE PHOTO / MANILA BULLETIN)
Leonen stated this in his dissenting opinion following the SC’s ruling denying with finality De Lima’s petition for a writ of habeas data against Duterte.
De Lima, in her petition claimed Duterte committed acts violating her right to “life, liberty and security and tarnished her reputation and character” when he repeatedly “slut-shamed” her on national television, being a vocal critic of the administration’s brutal war on drugs.
The associate justice said the SC, in the original resolution, dated Oct. 15, 2019, was unanimous in dismissing the petition but the senator’s motion for reconsideration elicited two dissents.
“With all due respect, this Court’s October 15, 2019 Resolution, and the summary denial of this Motion for Reconsideration, blatantly provides a double standard in the guise of ‘presidential immunity’,” Leonen wrote.
“In issuing humiliating, insulting, and misogynistic remarks at public forums in his official capacity as the President, it is President Duterte himself who degrades the dignity of his own Office,” he added.
In a resolution dated Oct. 15, 2019, the SC, sitting en banc, dismissed De Lima’s petition on the ground that Duterte, as the incumbent President of the Philippines “is immune from suit during his incumbency.”
In response, De lima said in her motion for reconsideration that the SC resolution “has twisted the doctrine of presidential immunity into a grotesque version of itself, inoculated the President from accountability for egregious conduct and placed an insurmountable barrier to the search for truth and the vindication of basic rights.”
Leonen agreed, saying the petition for a writ of habeas data is different from civil, criminal and administrative cases, nor does it provide relief in the form of civil, criminal and administrative liability.
“It merely adjudges accountability. It is an extraordinary remedy that is summary in nature, and must be resolved quickly, to provide for swift judicial relief,” he said.
“Even if civil, criminal or administrative cases cannot be filed during incumbency, the liability remains and is merely deferred at the end of tenure,” he said.
He also said the privilege of immunity from suit has never been intended to shield the President from any wrongdoing.
“The rationale is in keeping with our fundamental ideals: the public office is public trust. Even the President should be held accountable to the people at all times,” Leonen stated.“Thus, in cases where accountability is adjudged, and not liability, presidential immunity should not apply,” he further said.