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:
Rubrico, in her petition, said she was abducted on April 3, 2007 by armed men belonging to the 301st Air
Intelligence and Security Squadron, based at the Philippine Air Force Field Station at Fernando Air Base in
Lipa City, Batangas. During her detention, the petitioner added, her daughters Mary Joy Rubrico Carbonel
and Jean Rubrico Apruebo were harassed by Senior Insp. Arsenio Gomez and that there were also armed
men following them. The petitioners prayed that a writ of amparo be issued, ordering the individual
respondents to desist from performing any threatening act against the security of the petitioners and for
the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) to immediately file an information for kidnapping qualified with the
aggravating circumstance of gender of the offended party. It also prayed for damages and for respondents
to produce documents submitted to any of them on the case of Lourdes.
The respondents then filed a joint return on the writ specifically denying the material inculpatory averments
against them. Respondents interposed the defense that the President may not be sued during her
incumbency.
Petitioners pleaded back to be allowed to present evidence ex parte against the President, et al.
By a separate resolution, the CA dropped the President as respondent in the case .

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

The Court also affirmed the dismissal of the amparo case against other respondents for failure of the
petition to allege ultimate facts as to make out a case against that body for the enforced disappearance of
Lourdes and the threats and harassment that followed.