In De Lima v. Duterte (2019), the Philippine Supreme Court declared that the concept of presidential immunity during tenure does not distinguish whether or not the suit pertains to an official act of the President. This paper argues that absolute presidential immunity from suit as enlarged by De Lima is not supported by the text of the 1987 Constitution, the intent of its Framers, and prior case law. It must therefore be reconsidered and abandoned. This paper submits that under the 1987 Constitution, the President is amenable to civil and criminal proceedings for acts outside his official duties while he is in office. There is no constitutional requirement that the President must be impeached, convicted, and removed from office first before he can be subjected to such proceedings. Neither does the principle of separation of powers require immunizing the incumbent President from suits involving acts outside his official duties. Finally, this paper argues that the Office of the Ombudsman, an independent constitutional office, has the constitutional and statutory mandate to prosecute a sitting President.