Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • President Immunity from Civil Suits

    Uploaded by

    Mary Denn
    192 views1 page
    This case discusses whether the President can be sued while in office. The document argues that suing the President could degrade the dignity of the office and distract from their duties. However, the President remains accountable through impeachment. The petitioners argue the President should be able to be sued, while the respondents maintain the President's immunity from civil and criminal cases during their term.

    Original Description:

    Draft Only

    Original Title

    Case Digest David vs. Macapagal Arroyo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case discusses whether the President can be sued while in office. The document argues that suing the President could degrade the dignity of the office and distract from their duties. However, the President remains accountable through impeachment. The petitioners argue the President should be able to be sued, while the respondents maintain the President's immunity from civil and criminal cases during their term.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    192 views1 page

    President Immunity from Civil Suits

    Uploaded by

    Mary Denn
    This case discusses whether the President can be sued while in office. The document argues that suing the President could degrade the dignity of the office and distract from their duties. However, the President remains accountable through impeachment. The petitioners argue the President should be able to be sued, while the respondents maintain the President's immunity from civil and criminal cases during their term.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Prepared by: Obligado

    PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID, et. Al. | VS. | GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO GR The President, during her tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in
    171396 May 3, 2006 any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constituion or
    law. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State,
    PETITIONER: PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID, LORENZO TAÑADA III, if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such. Furthermore, it is
    RONALD LLAMAS, H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., JOEL RUIZ BUTUYAN,
    important that he be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to
    ROGER R. RAYEL, GARY S. MALLARI, ROMEL REGALADO BAGARES,
    CHRISTOPHER F.C. BOLASTIG, petitioners 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
    RESPONDENTS: GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, AS PRESIDENT AND and anything which impairs his usefulness in the discharge of the many great and
    COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO important duties imposed upon him by the Constitution necessarily impairs the
    ERMITA, HON. AVELINO CRUZ II, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL operation of the Government. However, this does not mean that the President is not
    DEFENSE, GENERAL GENEROSO SENGA, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED accountable to anyone. Like any other official, he remains accountable to the people
    FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, DIRECTOR GENERAL ARTURO
    but he may be removed from office only in the mode provided by law and that is by
    LOMIBAO, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, respondents
    IMPEACHMENT.
    SUMMARY:

    DOCTRINE:

    FACTS:

    1.

    2.

    ISSUES:

    1. Whether or not NEA acted in violation of the mandates of the law when it
    effected the full implementation of the new salary schedule on January 1,
    1997, instead of November 1, 1997.

    2. Whether or not the Commission committed grave abuse of discretion


    amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disallowing the increased
    salaries of NEA’s officials and employees for the period January 1, 1997 to
    October 31, 1997

    RULING:

    You might also like