Estrada vs Desierto G.R. No. 146710-15; Estrada vs Arroyo G.R. No.

146738, March 2 2001

[Immunity from Suit; Resignation of the President; Justiciable controversy]
FACTS:
It began in October 2000 when allegations of wrong doings involving bribe-taking, illegal gambling, and other forms of corruption
were made against Estrada before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. On November 13, 2000, Estrada was impeached by the
Hor and, on December 7, impeachment proceedings were begun in the Senate during which more serious allegations of graft and
corruption against Estrada were made and were only stopped on January 16, 2001 when 11 senators, sympathetic to the
President, succeeded in suppressing damaging evidence against Estrada. As a result, the impeachment trial was thrown into an
uproar as the entire prosecution panel walked out and Senate President Pimentel resigned after casting his vote against Estrada.
On January 19, PNP and the AFP also withdrew their support for Estrada and joined the crowd at EDSA Shrine. Estrada called for
a snap presidential election to be held concurrently with congressional and local elections on May 14, 2001. He added that he will
not run in this election. On January 20, SC declared that the seat of presidency was vacant, saying that Estrada constructively
resigned his post. At noon, Arroyo took her oath of office in the presence of the crowd at EDSA as the 14th President. Estrada
and his family later left Malacaang Palace. Erap, after his fall, filed petition for prohibition with prayer for WPI. It sought to enjoin
the respondent Ombudsman from conducting any further proceedings in cases filed against him not until his term as president
ends. He also prayed for judgment confirming Estrada to be the lawful and incumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines
temporarily unable to discharge the duties of his office.
ISSUE(S):
1. WoN the petition presents a justiciable controversy.
2. WoN Estrada resigned as President.
3. WoN Arroyo is only an acting President.
4. WoN the President enjoys immunity from suit.
5. WoN the prosecution of Estrada should be enjoined due to prejudicial publicity.
RULING:
1. Political questions- "to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign
capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the
government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a particular measure."
Legal distinction between EDSA People Power I EDSA People Power II:
EDSA I
exercise
of the
people
power
of
revolution which overthrew the whole
government.
extra constitutional and the legitimacy of
the new government that resulted from it
cannot be the subject of judicial review
presented a political question;

EDSA II
exercise of people power of freedom of
speech and freedom of assemblyto
petition the government for redress of
grievances which only affected the office of
the President.
intra constitutional and the resignation of
the sitting President that it caused and the
succession of the Vice President as
President are subject to judicial review.
involves legal questions.

The cases at bar pose legal and not political questions. The principal issues for resolution require the proper interpretation of
certain provisions in the 1987 Constitution: Sec 1 of Art II, and Sec 8 of Art VII, and the allocation of governmental powers under
Sec 11 of Art VII. The issues likewise call for a ruling on the scope of presidential immunity from suit. They also involve the correct
calibration of the right of petitioner against prejudicial publicity.

2. Elements of valid resignation: (a)an intent to resign and (b) acts of relinquishment. Both were present when President Estrada
left the Palace.
Totality of prior contemporaneous posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing material relevant issuesPresident
Estrada is deemed to have resigned constructive resignation.
SC declared that the resignation of President Estrada could not be doubted as confirmed by his leaving Malacaan Palace. In the
press release containing his final statement:
1. He acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President;
2. He emphasized he was leaving the Palace for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process (he did not say that
he was leaving due to any kind of disability and that he was going to reassume the Presidency as soon as the disability
disappears);
3. He expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them as President (without doubt referring to the past
opportunity);
4. He assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may come in the same service of the country;
5. He called on his supporters to join him in promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity.
Intent to resignmust be accompanied by act of relinquishmentact or omission before, during and after January 20, 2001.
3. The Congress passed House Resolution No. 176 expressly stating its support to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the
Republic of the Philippines and subsequently passed H.R. 178 confirms the nomination of Teofisto T. Guingona Jr. As Vice
President. Senate passed HR No. 83 declaring the Impeachment Courts as Functius Officio and has been terminated. It is clear is
that both houses of Congress recognized Arroyo as the President. Implicitly clear in that recognition is the premise that the inability
of Estrada is no longer temporary as the Congress has clearly rejected his claim of inability.
The Court therefore cannot exercise its judicial power for this is political in nature and addressed solely to Congress by
constitutional fiat. In fine, even if Estrada can prove that he did not resign, still, he cannot successfully claim that he is a President
on leave on the ground that he is merely unable to govern temporarily. That claim has been laid to rest by Congress and the
decision that Arroyo is the de jure, president made by a co-equal branch of government cannot be reviewed by this Court.
4. The cases filed against Estrada are criminal in character. They involve plunder, bribery and graft and corruption. By no stretch
of the imagination can these crimes, especially plunder which carries the death penalty, be covered by the alleged mantle of
immunity of a non-sitting president. He cannot cite any decision of this Court licensing the President to commit criminal acts and
wrapping him with post-tenure immunity from liability. The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the State and
the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such but stands in the same footing as any trespasser.
5. No. Case law will tell us that a right to a fair trial and the free press are incompatible. Also, since our justice system does not
use the jury system, the judge, who is a learned and legally enlightened individual, cannot be easily manipulated by mere publicity.
The Court also said that Estrada did not present enough evidence to show that the publicity given the trial has influenced the
judge so as to render the judge unable to perform. Finally, the Court said that the cases against Estrada were still undergoing
preliminary investigation, so the publicity of the case would really have no permanent effect on the judge and that the prosecutor
should be more concerned with justice and less with prosecution.
Categories: Constitutional Law 1, Estrada vs Arroyo Case Digest, Estrada vs Desierto Case Digest