RODRIGUEZ, vs MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

FACTS:

On 7 December 2009, Rodriguez filed before this Court a Petition for the
Writ of Amparo and Petition for the Writ of Habeas Data with Prayers for
Protection Orders, Inspection of Place, and Production of Documents and
Personal Properties dated 2 December 2009 former President Arroyo.
The Court of Appeals properly dropped then President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo as a party-respondent, as she may not be sued in any case during
her tenure of office or actual incumbency on account of her presidential
immunity from suit.

ISSUE:

W/N THE PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM SUIT MAY BE INVOKED BY

THE NON-SITTING PESIDENT

HELD:

The stance of CA is incorrect.

As held in Estrada’s case, his stance that his immunity covers his entire term of
office or until June 30, 2004 disregards the reality that he has relinquished the
presidency and there is now a new de jure President. The intent of the framers is
clear that the immunity of the president from suit is concurrent only with his tenure
and not his term.The petitioner, failed to distinguish between term and tenure. The
term means the time during which the officer may claim to hold the office as of
right, and fixes the interval after which the several incumbents shall succeed one
another. The tenure represents the term during which the incumbent actually holds
office.

Applying the foregoing rationale to the case at bar, it is clear that former President
Arroyo cannot use the presidential immunity from suit to shield herself from judicial
scrutiny that would assess whether, within the context of amparo proceedings, she
was responsible or accountable for the abduction of Rodriguez.