No immunity from suit for the VP

The issuance of a warrant of arrest by a Quezon City's Regional Trial Court against Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte Carpio is perfectly valid, constitutional, and legal. The pendency of an impeachment case against the vice president does not constitute double jeopardy.

If I were a Bar examiner in the ongoing Bar examinations, in Criminal Law or Remedial Law, I would certainly ask a question on the twin issues of first, whether or not the vice president enjoys immunity from suit like the president, and second on whether or not the pendency of an impeachment case legally prohibits the filing of criminal charges against the vice president.

My answers to both issues are in the negative. Although there is no specific provision in the 1987 Constitution explicitly providing for such immunity, the strength of jurisprudence strongly supports this fundamental principle in political and constitutional law.

The Supreme Court clearly explained the doctrine of presidential immunity from suit in the landmark en banc decision in the case of Leila de Lima v. Rodrigo Duterte, GR 227365, promulgated on October 15, 2019.  In this presidential privilege written by then chief justice Lucas Bersamin, the high court stressed: "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."

CJ Bersamin explained: "It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the head of State, if he can be dragged into court litigation while serving as such. Furthermore, it is important that he be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to 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 and anything which impairs his usefulness in the discharge of the many great and important duties imposed upon him by the constitution necessarily impairs the operation of the Government."

The court hastened to interject a caveat: "However, this does not mean that the President is not accountable to anyone. Like any other official, 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."

This presidential privilege however does not extend to the office of the vice president. The evil sought to be avoided in the case of the president does not exist in the office of the vice president.

Public interest does not stand to be compromised when the vice president is sued, unlike the president who is both the head of state and the head of government, and is also the commander-in-chief of all the armed forces, as well as the chief architect of our foreign policies. The vice president is not in charge of any function of the government. She is just a spare tire being prepared in the event something untoward happens to the president.

Also, the principle against double jeopardy is not violated when the vice president is being impeached and at the same time being charged criminally for grave threats. Double jeopardy protects a person from being tried twice for the exact same criminal offense. For it to work, the first case must finish with a final judgment of conviction or acquittal after a proper criminal trial. Because impeachment is political and not a criminal prosecution, facing both at the same time does not violate this rule

The vice president is a lawyer being surrounded by a team of multiple legal practitioners. All of them are well aware of all these legal principles.