Practice question
A former President, whose incumbency has ended, faces a proper proceeding concerning alleged misconduct while previously serving as a mayor. The former official argues that having later become President erased that earlier liability permanently. Which answer follows the accountability distinction in Ombudsman v. Duterte?
- Past presidential service does not permanently erase wrongdoing; an incumbency-based shield cannot by itself defeat the proceeding after tenure
- Election to the presidency automatically legalizes every earlier act
- All public officers acquire lifelong immunity after one presidential meeting
- The proceeding is barred solely because the person once held national office
- The immunity rule transfers all liabilities to private citizens
Legal references
- Office of the Ombudsman v. Duterte, G.R. Nos. 198201 and 198334, March 15, 2023, main decision, accountability and limits of presidential immunity: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/mar2023/gr_198201_2023.html
- Nepomuceno v. Duterte, UDK No. 16838, May 11, 2021, main resolution, presidential immunity during incumbency: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/may2021/udk_16838_2021.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.