Soliven v Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393 (1988)

FACTS:Beltran is among the petitioners in this case. He together with otherswas charged for libel by the president. Cory herself filed a complaint-affidavit against him and others. Makasiar averred that Cory cannotfile a complaint affidavit because this would defeat her immunityfrom suit. He grounded his contention on the principle that apresident cannot be sued. However, if a president would sue thenthe president would allow herself tobe placed under the court’s jurisdiction and conversely she would be consenting to be sued back. Also, considering the functions of a president, the president may notbe able to appear in court to be a witness for herself thus she maybe liable for contempt.

ISSUE:Whether or not the President, under the Constitution, may initiatecriminal proceedings against the petitioners through the filing of acomplaint-affidavit?

HELD:The rationale for the grant to the President of the privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise of Presidential dutiesand functions free from any hindrance or distraction, consideringthat being the Chief Executive of the Government is a job that, asidefrom requiring all of the office-holder’s time, also demands undividedattention.But this privilege of immunity from suit, pertains to the President byvirtue of the office and may be invoked only by the holder of theoffice; not by any other person in the President’s behalf. Thus, an

accused like Beltran et al, in a criminal case in which the President iscomplainant cannot raise the presidential privilege as a defense toprevent the case from proceeding against such accused.Moreover, there is nothing in our laws that would prevent thePresident from waiving the privilege. Thus, if so minded thePresident may shed the protection afforded by the privilege andsubmit to the court’s jurisdiction. The choice of whether to exercisethe privilege or to waive it is solely the President’s prerogative. It is adecision that cannot be assumed and imposed by any other person.WHEREFORE finding no grave abuse of discretion amounting toexcess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondents,the court resolved to DISMISS the petitions.