The writ of habeas data filed in the Supreme Court by De Lima against Duterte, like the writ of amparo and the writ of habeas corpus, is SUMMARY in nature precisely because its urgent purpose is to protect a citizen's sacred and precious right to life, security, and liberty.
The Supreme Court, perhaps out of respect for the Executive (a co-equal branch of government) did not issue a direct order to the respondent Duterte to file his Comment. Instead it ordered the Solicitor General (not necessarily as counsel for Duterte) to file his Comment on the "prejudicial issue" of the "presidential immunity from suit" before the Court tackles the "merits" of the De Lima petition.
The action of the Court, to my mind, is dilatory. What it should have done was to issue an order addressed to the Solicitor General as counsel for the Republic and to Duterte himself, in his capacity as the sole respondent, to file their respective Comments, which should discuss and argue their respective positions on the procedural issue of "prejudicial question" (as a special affirmative defense) and the substantive issues involving the "merits" of the De Lima petition.
In that way, the spirit, urgency and "summary nature" of the petition for a writ of habeas data are duly preserve. Summary proceedings must not be delayed, much less by the very Court which has issued the summary rules of the writs of amparo, habeas data and habeas corpus to preserve the right to life, liberty and security of citizens.
The Court should not be too timid and overly cautious in asserting its constitutional power of "judicial review" which has been expanded by Article VIII (Judiciary) of the 1987 Constitution precisely to empower it to "nullify" acts by the Executive and the Legislative which it deems to be unconstitutional and illegal acts constituting "grave abuse of discretion".