Immunity from suit applies to VP Sara

WHETHER or not the doctrine of the president's immunity from suit applies to the vice president has become a swirling controversy among certain politicized members of the bar. Lawyers of various political persuasions have joined the current debate on the subject owing to the issuance of a warrant of arrest by a Quezon City regional trial court judge on the charges of grave threats filed against Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte in the midst of the latter's ongoing impeachment trial. While there is no specific provision in the 1987 Constitution expressly granting the president immunity from suit, said provision appearing in the 1973 Constitution having been removed, for the reason that even without being enshrined thereat, such immunity grant has been recognized in the United States, from which our Constitution was derived. The principle that the president cannot be sued during his tenure has also been supported by jurisprudence in our jurisdiction. In one case, the Supreme Court elucidated the concept of presidential immunity in this wise: x x x 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 is freed from any form of harassment, hindrances or distraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance of his official duties and functions. x x x x However, this does not mean that the president is not accountable to anyone. Like any other office, he remains accountable to the people, but he may be removed from office only in the mode provided by law and that is by impeachment.' Does the immunity from suit extend to the vice president? A resounding yes! The philosophy behind the immunity from suit doctrine is to shield the president, an impeachable officer, from being distracted from performing his official duties arising out of harassment suits. The same reasoning applies to the vice president. The vice president has official duties to fulfill without any hindrance. Moreover, she is a heartbeat away from the presidency and succeeds the president at any time the constitutional grounds for succession come into play. The filing of criminal charges against the vice president while she is being tried by the impeachment court for the very same alleged offenses of grave threats and inciting to sedition has raised unsettling concerns not only on its filing and intention, but more importantly, on its constitutionality and legality. The framers of the Constitution intended the impeachment as a mechanism to remove an unfit and errant constitutional official and prosecute him after conviction for any criminal wrongdoing. The vice president cannot be ousted by way of a conviction of a crime. To do so, would be a circumvention of the constitutional process of removal. The alleged utterances of grave threats and inciting to sedition by VP Sara were made on Nov. 23, 2024. If as the prosecution says not only were the inflammatory remarks so grave as to engender fear for the lives of the 'threatened' personalities, namely, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., first lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former House speaker Martin Romualdez, labeled as an 'active security threat,' 'criminal' and 'dangerous,' and according to National Bureau of Investigation investigators, threatened national security, why did it take them almost two years to file criminal case? Why was it instituted only after the commencement of the impeachment trial when the impeachment complaint already included grave threats and inciting to sedition as basis for its Article IV? What could be the intent in filing the said criminal cases, the inciting to sedition, which was already dismissed by the Department of Justice? It is indisputable that the enemies and detractors of VP Sara who engineered her impeachment have for their agenda, the removal of the latter from office and her disqualification to run in the 2028 presidential elections, the accessory penalty being, in case of conviction, perpetual disqualification to hold public office. The obstacle to this goal is getting 16 of the senator-judges to vote for conviction, the constitutional requirement of two-thirds of 24 senators, a number seemingly improbable, if not impossible, to secure given the political persuasion of more than the majority of the sitting senators, especially because the growing sentiment and sympathy of the majority is veering toward VP Sara. The political pulse and temper of the citizenry will greatly influence the decision of the senator-jurors. Given this losing scenario, the immediate and best alternative is a court conviction of VP Sara on the grave threats charge, which accessory penalty, apart from imprisonment, is perpetual disqualification from office. If she is convicted, she can no longer run for president, or for any public position for that matter. So there, the cat is out of the bag. The conviction is an insurance to achieve their devious plan of obliterating her. The present criminal case against her is a constitutional transgression as it intends to remove her from office via a court conviction. The Constitution is crystal clear, the prosecution of an impeached official for a crime comes only after conviction in an impeachment trial, not before its commencement nor during the impeachment hearing. The crime of grave threats is the basis of Article 4 of the impeachment complaint. VP Sara is already being tried for it. It will be a constitutional incongruity if both the impeachment court and the regional trial court simultaneously try the respondent and render incompatible decisions, one of acquittal and the other, a conviction. It is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction for the lower court to acquire jurisdiction over the criminal case as it violates the Constitution. What is glaringly clear is that the powers that be are throwing everything including the kitchen sink at VP Sara. By so doing, they are digging their own graves. There is a limit to people's patience. There may be no stopping the coming of the political Armageddon.