ESTRADA VS DESIERTO (March 2, 2001)

Nature Petition for prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction; Quo Warranto
Parties Joseph Estrada, petitioner
Aniano Desierto as Ombudsman, et al, respondents
Disputed Matter Legality and constitutionality of respondent Ombudsman’s conduct of proceedings pertaining to criminal cases filed against
Estrada.

Estrada’s declaration as the lawful and incumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge
the duties of his office

Legality and constitutionality of PGMA’s assumption of the Presidency in view of EDSA II and the consequent alleged
resignation of Estrada.
Antecedents May 1998
Estrada won the Presdiency, with GMA as VP.
 Erosion of popularity. Estrada’s popularity declined, the apex of which is the whistle-blowing of Chavit Singson, his friend
that he has been receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords in 2000.

October 2000
 Senator TG delivered a privileged speech accusing Estrada of graft and corruption (tobacco excise taxes, etc)
 Both houses of the Congress conducted investigations.
 Calls for resignation filled the air, supported by various group spearheaded by Cardinal Sin then the CBCP. Joining also is
Former Pres Aquino.
 GMA, his VP resigned and joined the call for resignation. Various other officials resigned.

November 2000
 HOR transmitted the Articles of Impeachment XII(2) and (3).
- Impeachment shall be initiated by the HOR with 1/3 vote;
- Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases, with the Chief Justice presiding;
- Purpose is removal from office without prejudice to other actions that may be brought upon the public official.

December 2000
 Impeachment trial formally started, covered by media.
 Turning point of trial: Clarissa Ocampo’s (SVP of Equitable PCI Bank) testimony that she saw Estrada sign his name as
Jose Velarde.
 Impeachment suspended for Christmas, upon resumption, there were allegations against Estrada.
January 2001
 The Senate voted against opening the evidence that will prove the Estrada’s holding of account under the name Jose
Velarde.
 Prosecution walked-out, Senate President resigned.
 People assembled at EDSA Shrine.
 Impeachment was indefinitely postponed.
 Intensification of the calls for resignation. People flooded the EDSA streets.
 Estrada agreed to hold snap elections where he will not be candidate.
 AFP and PNP withdrew support from the government.
 Negotiations took place in Malacanan for the orderly transfer of powers to PGMA.
 News broke that CJ Davide will administer GMA’s oath as President in EDSA Shrine.
 The Oath took place and Estrada left Malacanan releasing Statement: declaring that he was leaving the Malacanan palace
and the seat of Presidency.
 Subsequently, a letter (origins unknown) stating his inability to perform his functions as the President submitting the
same to the Speaker of the House and the Senate President.
 Arroyo then immediately discharged the functions of the President:
- Appointed members of her cabinet;
- Signed laws;
- Nominated TG as VP.
 HOR supported her Presidency.

February 2001
 Impeachment proceedings were terminated. But Santiago voted against since even if Estrada allegedly resigned, the
matter of his disqualification from holding public office isn’t settled yet.
 Several criminal cases for bribery, graft and corruption, plunder were filed against Estrada before the Ombudsman.
 Estrada sought to enjoin the proceedings of the Ombudsman until the expiration of his term, alleging that he is still
President temporarily unable to perform his duties and PGMA was merely an acting President.
 His counsel contended that:
- The court did not issue a resolution declaring the Presidential post vacant;
- Ordered officers of the court to refrain discussion of merits of the case while still pending resolution;
- Enjoin Ombudsman from proceeding with his criminal case.
Issues Decision Doctrine
I. PROCEDURAL:
a. Given that the case at No. Tanada v. Cuenco
bar covers the Political questions – questions which,
legitimacy of Arroyo’s a. Arroyo’s Presidency is not a result of a successful revolution, thus it under the Constitution, are:
Presidency obtained is within the province of the Courts to inquire as the legitimacy of 1. to be decided by the people in
through people power, the resulting government. Arroyo’s government is not revolutionary their sovereign capacity, or
was it a political in character and thus subject to judicial review. 2. in regard to which full
question? discretionary authority has been
Distinctions between EDSA I and EDSA II. delegated to the legislative or
executive branch.
Distinctions EDSA I EDSA II
i. Power exercised People power people power of (a) It is concerned with issues dependent
by people of revolution freedom of speech upon the wisdom, not legality of a
and (b) freedom of particular measure.
assembly to petition
the government for The application of the Political
redress of question doctrine as a restriction was
grievances limited by the 1987 Constitution when
ii. Legal effects Overthrowing Affected only the it expanded the scope of judicial
of the whole office of the review, covering:
government President 1. Not only actual cases or
iii. Constitutionality Extra- Intra-constitutional controversies involving rights
constitutional which are legally demandable and
iv. Result Creation of a Resignation of enforceable; but also,
new current and 2. Determination if there has been
government succession of GAD on the part of any branch or
another in instrumentality of the government.
Presidency
v. Results subject to No. Yes. The legitimacy of a government sired
judicial review? by a successful revolution by people
vi. Questions Political Legal power is beyond judicial scrutiny for
presented that government automatically orbits
out of the constitutional loop.

The cornerstone of EDSA II is the

People’s exercise of their (a) Freedom of
speech; and (b) Freedom of assembly to
seek redress of grievances. This is carried
Issues Decision Doctrine
over in the 1987 Constitution in III(4).

The indispensability of the people’s

freedom of speech and of assembly to
democracy is now self-evident.
The reasons are well put by Emerson:
1. freedom of expression is essential as
a means of assuring individual
fulfillment;
2. it is an essential process for
advancing knowledge and
discovering truth;
3. it is essential to provide for
participation in decision-making by
all members of society; and
4. it is a method of achieving a more
adaptable and hence, a more stable
community of maintaining the
precarious balance between healthy
cleavage and necessary consensus.
II. SUBSTANTIVE:
a. Did Estrada resign Yes. Distinctions between Sections 8 and 11 of Articlle
from Presidency? VII (relavant)
a. Estrada clearly intended to resign despite the absence of the
formal, written resignation letter. This is based on the totality of a. Instances covered:
facts prior, during and after the matter as well as relevant Sec. 8 – death, permanent disability,
circumstantial evidences. For as long as the intent to resign is removal from office, or resignation.
clear, it must be given legal effect. Sec 11 – inability to discharge the
powers and duties of the President
Resignation is not a high level legal abstraction. It is a factual question b. Succession:
and its elements are beyond quibble: Sec. 8 – VP shall be the President for
i. there must be an intent to resign and the unexpired term.
ii. the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment Sec 11 –powers and duties of the
President shall be discharged by the
In determining intent, the Court relied on the Angara diary which VP in an acting capacity
narrated the event leading to the eventual Estrada’s desertion of c. Requirement for formalities:
Malacanan. Sec. 8 – no express requirement as to
- The decision to hold snap elections is indicative of his intention form
Issues Decision Doctrine
to give up Presidency; Sec 11 – submission of written
- Upon Pimentel’s suggestion of resignation, Estrada did not declaration of incapacity to the Senate
disagree; President and the Speaker of the
- Resignation was implied from the decision to peacefully transfer House
powers to Arroyo;
- On negotiations, resignation was not disputed;
- He said, Ayoko na. This shows intent to resign;
- Though the negotiations were not signed as the oath-taking of
GMA intervened, the events that led up to this as narrated in the
Angara diary shows clear intent of Estrada to resign;
- The deletion of the phrase on resignation in the negotiation
papers is merely because it was rendered moot and academic by
the oath-taking of GMA, resignation is implied;
- His final statement before leaving Malacanan is evident of this
intent.

b. The appearance of the letter declaring him unable to discharge

his duties as the President does not negate the fact of his
intention to resign.
- The letter is of doubtful origin;
- If it was prepared before the press release of the petitioner
clearly showing his resignation from the presidency, then the
resignation must prevail as a later act. If, however, it was
prepared after the press release, still, it commands scant legal
significance. Petitioner’ resignation from the presidency cannot
be the subject of a changing caprice nor of a whimsical will
especially if the resignation is the result of his repudiation by the
people.

c. Estrada is not barred from resignation by virtue of section 12

of RA No. 3019 disallowing the resignation of public officials
with pending cases.
- To force someone to serve will violate his constitutional right
against involuntary servitude. Estrada may resign as he wishes;
- But such resignation will not operate to terminate proceedings
against him.
Issues Decision Doctrine
b. Was Estrada only No. This contention is based on the mysterious letter submitted to the Congress has the ultimate authority under
temporarily unable to Senate President and the Speaker of the House. the Constitution to determine whether the
act as President? President is incapable of performing his
a. Both houses of Congress have recognized respondent Arroyo functions in the manner provided for in
as the President. Implicitly clear in that recognition is the section 11 of Article VII.
premise that the inability of petitioner Estrada is no longer
temporary. Congress has clearly rejected petitioner’s claim of
inability.

It is clear from the acts of both houses of the Congress in the

issuance of resolutions affirming the Presidency of Arroyo,
confirming her nomination of TG, terminating the impeachment of
Estrada. All these acts were performed despite the receipt of the
said letter. This shows clearly the Congress determined that the
President’s inability is no longer temporary and thus Arroyo’s
Presidency shall be binding.

c. Given that the No. The question is political in nature and addressed solely to Congress The Congress has the sole power to
Congress already by constitutional fiat. It is a political issue which cannot be decided by this determine whether the President’s inability
determined that Court without transgressing the principle of separation of powers. is no longer temporary under VII(11).
Estrada’s inability is no There is no required form for the
longer temporary, was declaration of such inability and may be
that determination inferred from its actions relevant to the
subject to the Court’s matter at hand.
review?
d. Does Estrada enjoy No. The President, in this case is not immune from suit. Executive Immunity from suit emerged
immunity from suit? If from our case law. It is enunciated in the
yes, what is the extent a. Estrada can be prosecuted notwithstanding the pendency or 1910 case of Forbes, etc. vs. Chuoco tiaco and
of such immunity? eventual termination of the impeachment proceedings. The Crossfield.
criminal case may proceed independent of the impeachment
proceedings. Under the doctrine in this case:
- The President is immune only if he
- Since the impeachment proceedings was terminated, the acted within the scope of his
contention of Estrada that he has to be convicted under the authority;
impeachment proceedings first before his criminal prosecution  It does not mean that the
will put a perpetual bar to the latter. aggrieved party is deprived of any
- The purpose of the impeachment proceedings is the removal of redress. It only means that the
a government official from office – there is no need for criminal President may not be personally
Issues Decision Doctrine
conviction before the criminal proceedings may prosper. mulcted in civil damages for the
consequences of an act executed in
b. Even assuming that the President is immune, the scope of the performance of his official
such does not cover the current case where the prosecution duties. The Court though retains
arise from unlawful acts and omissions. The cases filed its power to nullify the act of the
against petitioner Estrada are criminal in character. They executive and as much as possible
involve plunder, bribery and graft and corruption. restore the original condition prior
to said acts;
The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the  It is in light of public policy that
State and the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such but the President must not be unduly
stands in the same footing as any other trespasser. hampered by suit in view of the
great responsibility resting upon
Estrada then must be prosecuted in his personal capacity by reason his shoulders.
of his unlawful acts.
What governs executive immunity?
The 1935 Constitution does not contain
any express provision on executive
immunity.

The 1973 Constitution provided and

expanded the scope of executive
immunity:
1. It covered not just civil but also
criminal cases;
2. It covered even acts outside the
authority of the President;
3. It is extended to those people
beyond the President.
This immunity was abused during the
Marcos regime.

In the 1987 Constitution, the provision on

executive immunity is eliminated and this
is now governed by Jurisprudence.

When impeachment proceedings have

become moot due to the resignation of
the President, the proper criminal and
Issues Decision Doctrine
civil cases may already be filed against
him
e. Should Estrada’s No. It is apparent that we subscribe to the American approach. Two principal legal and philosophical
prosecutions be schools of thought on how to deal with
enjoined due to a. The right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free the rain of unrestrained publicity during
prejudicial publicity? press. the investigation and trial of high profile
b. Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused cases.
to fair trial. The mere fact that the trial of appellant was given a day- a. The British approach the problem
to-day, gavel-to-gavel coverage does not by itself prove that the with the presumption that publicity
publicity so permeated the mind of the trial judge and impaired his will prejudice a jury. Thus, English
impartiality. courts readily stay and stop criminal
c. The judges were learned in that they will not be automatically trials when the right of an accused to
affected by public opinion in the course of prosecuting a case. fair trial suffers a threat.
d. For the court to order the stoppage of the proceedings there must b. The American approach is different.
be evidence to the fact that the judges have actually been influenced, US courts assume a skeptical approach
evidence is needed to prove such. In this case, Estrada was not able about the potential effect of pervasive
to show such evidence. publicity on the right of an accused to
a fair trial.