Case Digest: Joseph Estrada vs.

Aniano Disierto
G.R. No. 146710-15 02 March 2001

FACTS:
After the sharp descent from power of Chavit Singson, he went on air and accused the petitioner of
receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords. Calls for resignation filled the air and former allies and
members of the Presidents administration started resigning one by one. In a session on November 13,
House Speaker Villar transmitted the Articles of Impeachment signed by 115 representatives or more
than 1/3 of all the members of the House to the Senate. The impeachment trial formally opened which
is the start of the dramatic fall from power of the President, which is most evident in the EDSA Dos rally.
On January 20, the President submitted two letters one signifying his leave from the Palace and the
other signifying his inability to exercise his powers pursuant to Section 11, Article VII of the Constitution.
Thereafter, Arroyo took oath as President of the Philippines.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the petitioner resigned as President; and
2. Whether the impeachment proceedings bar the petitioner from resigning
RULING:
1. For a resignation to be legally valid, there must be an intent to resign and the intent must be
coupled by acts of relinquishment which may be oral or written, express or implied, for as long
as the resignation is clear. In the press release containing his final statement, he acknowledged
the oath-taking of Arroyo as President; he emphasized he was leaving the Palace without the
mention of any inability and intent of reassumption; he expressed his gratitude to the people;
he assured will not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in the same service of
the country. This is of high grade evidence of his intent to resign.
2. Petitioners contention that the impeachment proceeding is an administrative investigation that,
under section 12 of RA 3019, bars him from resigning is not affirmed by the Court. The exact
nature of an impeachment proceeding is debatable. But even assuming arguendo that it is an
administrative proceeding, it cannot be considered pending at the time petitioner resigned
because the process already broke down when a majority of the senator-judges voted against
the opening of the second envelope, the public and private prosecutors walked out, the public
prosecutors filed their Manifestation of Withdrawal of Appearance, and the proceedings were
postponed indefinitely. There was, in effect, no impeachment case pending against the
petitioner when he resigned.