A former law dean has stated that Vice President Sara Duterte lacks immunity from prosecution in a serious threats case filed against her. Mel Sta. Maria clarified in a Facebook post that the vice president’s office does not carry inherent executive powers unless the president delegates specific tasks. His explanation distinguishes the vice president’s role from that of the president, whose authority includes national defense, foreign relations, and crisis management.
The vice president’s functions are restricted to assuming the presidency if the incumbent is incapacitated. Any additional responsibilities, such as leading task forces or overseeing programs, must be formally assigned by the president. Sta. Maria emphasized that these powers are not inherent but granted only when the president chooses to delegate them. All executive responsibilities, special task forces, or program oversight assigned to the position are granted strictly through individual Executive or Administrative Orders issued at the discretion of the sitting President.
The legal argument relies on the 2019 Supreme Court decision in De Lima vs. Duterte, which ruled that presidential immunity from lawsuits is essential to prevent distractions from the demands of office. The court affirmed that the president’s role as commander-in-chief, head of state, and chief executive justifies protection from legal interference. In contrast, the vice president’s limited authority does not warrant the same level of immunity.
The threats case originates from statements allegedly made by Duterte, where she reportedly instructed someone to kill the president, first lady, and former speaker if she were harmed. A Quezon City Regional Trial Court has already issued an arrest order against her in connection with the allegations. The central legal question now is whether her vice presidential status provides protection—or whether her remarks, made outside official duties, expose her to legal action.
Read Also: 403 Error Hides Website Content
Sta. Maria’s position asserts that immunity depends on the actual responsibilities of an office, not its title alone. While the president’s extensive powers require legal safeguards, the vice president’s role—unless expanded by the president, does not. This perspective may shape how courts evaluate the case, especially if prosecutors argue that Duterte’s statements were personal rather than official acts.
The court’s decision on Duterte’s arrest has not yet been issued, but the legal reasoning highlights a critical point: in the Philippines, high-ranking officials do not automatically receive immunity. Instead, protection depends on the extent of their delegated duties. How judges interpret the connection between her alleged threats and her official role will determine the outcome.
The prosecution must prove that Duterte’s statements exceeded the boundaries of her delegated authority. If courts conclude that her remarks were made in a personal capacity, they may reject claims of official immunity. The case could set a precedent for how future legal challenges involving high-ranking officials are handled, particularly when their actions blur the line between personal and official conduct.
