Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

Rubrico vs. Pgma

The petitioners filed a criminal complaint against various government officials and military personnel for the alleged kidnapping and detention of Lourdes Rubrico in 2007. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, citing the long-standing jurisprudential rule that the President enjoys immunity from suit during their term in office. The petitioners challenged this decision, arguing that the 1987 Constitution removed such presidential immunity. However, the Supreme Court ruled that presidential immunity from suit during incumbency remains preserved under the Philippine system of government, as it is understood that allowing lawsuits against the President could degrade the dignity of the office and hinder the performance of their official duties.

Uploaded by

Royce Ann Pedemonte
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

Rubrico vs. Pgma

The petitioners filed a criminal complaint against various government officials and military personnel for the alleged kidnapping and detention of Lourdes Rubrico in 2007. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, citing the long-standing jurisprudential rule that the President enjoys immunity from suit during their term in office. The petitioners challenged this decision, arguing that the 1987 Constitution removed such presidential immunity. However, the Supreme Court ruled that presidential immunity from suit during incumbency remains preserved under the Philippine system of government, as it is understood that allowing lawsuits against the President could degrade the dignity of the office and hinder the performance of their official duties.

Uploaded by

Royce Ann Pedemonte
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

183871               February 18, 2010

LOURDES D. RUBRICO, JEAN RUBRICO APRUEBO, and MARY JOY RUBRICO


CARBONEL, Petitioners,
vs.
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, P/DIR. GEN.
AVELINO RAZON, MAJ. DARWIN SY a.k.a. DARWIN REYES, JIMMY SANTANA,
RUBEN ALFARO, CAPT. ANGELO CUARESMA, a certain JONATHAN, P/SUPT.
EDGAR B. ROQUERO, ARSENIO C. GOMEZ, and OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, Respondents.

FACTS:

Generality of Criminal Laws

Exemption: President during incumbency; no need for express provision in the law, well
settled rule in the jurisprudence

III. Facts

On April 3, 2007, Lourdes Rubrico, was abducted by armed men belonging to the 301 st
air intelligence security squadrom (AISS) and was brought and detained at the airbase
without any charges. She was set free after a series of mental and verbal abuse and
only after she signed a statement that she would bea military asset.

Lourdes Rubrico filed with the Ombudsman a criminal complaint for kidnapping and
arbitrary detention and administrative complaint for gross abuse of authority and grave
misconduct against Alfaro, Cuaresma, and Santana. Nothing happened in the case as
the witnesses went into hiding after being harassed by government forces in plain
clothes.

The petition of Writ of Amparo before the CA granted the petitioner’s motion and that
the petition and writ be served on Darwin Sy/Reyes, Santana, Alfaro, Cuaresma, and
Jonathan

By a separate resolution, the Court of Appeals dropped the President (PGMA) as


respondent to the case for the defense that : (1) the President may not be sued during
her incumbency;

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT the [CA] committed reversible error in dismissing [their] Petition
and dropping President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as party respondent.

RULLING

NO.

Petitioners first take issue on the President’s purported lack of immunity from suit during
her term of office. The 1987 Constitution, so they claim, has removed such immunity
heretofore enjoyed by the chief executive under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions.

Petitioners are mistaken. The presidential immunity from suit remains preserved under
our system of government, albeit not expressly reserved in the present constitution.
Addressing a concern of his co-members in the 1986 Constitutional Commission on the
absence of an express provision on the matter, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. observed that it
was already understood in jurisprudence that the President may not be sued during his
or her tenure.9 

The Court subsequently made it abundantly clear in David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, a case


likewise resolved under the umbrella of the 1987 Constitution, that indeed the President
enjoys immunity during her incumbency, and why this must be so:

Settled is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office or actual
incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to
provide for it in the Constitution or law.

It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State, if he can
be dragged into court litigations while serving as such. Furthermore, it is important that
he be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully
attend to the performance of his official duties and functions. Unlike the legislative and
judicial branch, only one constitutes the executive branch and anything which impairs
his usefulness in the discharge of the many great and important duties imposed upon
him by the Constitution necessarily impairs the operation of the Government.10 x x x

You might also like