CASES

ARTICLE VII - EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

SECTION 1

EN BANC

G.R. No. 88211 September 15, 1989

FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., IRENE M. ARANETA, IMEE
MANOTOC, TOMAS MANOTOC, GREGORIO ARANETA, PACIFICO E. MARCOS, NICANOR YÑIGUEZ and
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), represented by its President, CONRADO F.
ESTRELLA, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS, CATALINO MACARAIG, SEDFREY ORDOÑEZ, MIRIAM DEFENSOR
SANTIAGO, FIDEL RAMOS, RENATO DE VILLA, in their capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Executive Secretary,
Secretary of Justice, Immigration Commissioner, Secretary of National Defense and Chief of Staff, respectively, respondents.

CORTES, J.:

Before the Court is a controversy of grave national importance. While ostensibly only legal issues are involved, the Court's decision in
this case would undeniably have a profound effect on the political, economic and other aspects of national life.

We recall that in February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent "people power" revolution
and forced into exile. In his stead, Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the Republic under a revolutionary government. Her
ascension to and consolidation of power have not been unchallenged. The failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by political leaders of
Mr. Marcos, the takeover of television station Channel 7 by rebel troops led by Col. Canlas with the support of "Marcos loyalists" and
the unsuccessful plot of the Marcos spouses to surreptitiously return from Hawaii with mercenaries aboard an aircraft chartered by a
Lebanese arms dealer [Manila Bulletin, January 30, 1987] awakened the nation to the capacity of the Marcoses to stir trouble even
from afar and to the fanaticism and blind loyalty of their followers in the country. The ratification of the 1987 Constitution enshrined
the victory of "people power" and also clearly reinforced the constitutional moorings of Mrs. Aquino's presidency. This did not,
however, stop bloody challenges to the government. On August 28, 1987, Col. Gregorio Honasan, one of the major players in the
February Revolution, led a failed coup that left scores of people, both combatants and civilians, dead. There were several other armed
sorties of lesser significance, but the message they conveyed was the same — a split in the ranks of the military establishment that
threatened civilian supremacy over military and brought to the fore the realization that civilian government could be at the mercy of a
fractious military.

But the armed threats to the Government were not only found in misguided elements and among rabid followers of Mr. Marcos. There
are also the communist insurgency and the successionist movement in Mindanao which gained ground during the rule of Mr. Marcos,
to the extent that the communists have set up a parallel government of their own on the areas they effectively control while the
separatist are virtually free to move about in armed bands. There has been no let up on this groups' determination to wrest power from
the government. Not only through resort to arms but also to through the use of propaganda have they been successful in dreating chaos
and destabilizing the country.

Nor are the woes of the Republic purely political. The accumulated foreign debt and the plunder of the nation attributed to Mr. Marcos
and his cronies left the economy devastated. The efforts at economic recovery, three years after Mrs. Aquino assumed office, have yet
to show concrete results in alleviating the poverty of the masses, while the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses has
remained elusive.

Now, Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philipppines to die. But Mrs. Aquino, considering the dire
consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened from various directions and the
economy is just beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family.

The Petition
This case is unique. It should not create a precedent, for the case of a dictator forced out of office and into exile after causing twenty
years of political, economic and social havoc in the country and who within the short space of three years seeks to return, is in a class
by itself.

This petition for mandamus and prohibition asks the Courts to order the respondents to issue travel documents to Mr. Marcos and the
immediate members of his family and to enjoin the implementation of the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines.

The Issue

Th issue is basically one of power: whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President may
prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.

According to the petitioners, the resolution of the case would depend on the resolution of the following issues:

1. Does the President have the power to bar the return of former President Marcos and family to the Philippines?

a. Is this a political question?

2. Assuming that the President has the power to bar former President Marcos and his family from returning to the
Philippines, in the interest of "national security, public safety or public health

a. Has the President made a finding that the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines is a
clear and present danger to national security, public safety or public health?

b. Assuming that she has made that finding

(1) Have the requirements of due process been complied with in making such finding?

(2) Has there been prior notice to petitioners?

(3) Has there been a hearing?

(4) Assuming that notice and hearing may be dispensed with, has the President's decision,
including the grounds upon which it was based, been made known to petitioners so that they may
controvert the same?

c. Is the President's determination that the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines is a
clear and present danger to national security, public safety, or public health a political question?

d. Assuming that the Court may inquire as to whether the return of former President Marcos and his family is a clear
and present danger to national security, public safety, or public health, have respondents established such fact?

3. Have the respondents, therefore, in implementing the President's decision to bar the return of former President
Marcos and his family, acted and would be acting without jurisdiction, or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion, in performing any act which would effectively bar the return of former President Marcos and his
family to the Philippines? [Memorandum for Petitioners, pp. 5-7; Rollo, pp. 234-236.1

The case for petitioners is founded on the assertion that the right of the Marcoses to return to the Philippines is guaranteed under the
following provisions of the Bill of Rights, to wit:

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person
be denied the equal protection of the laws.

xxx xxx xxx

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired
except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
The petitioners contend that the President is without power to impair the liberty of abode of the Marcoses because only a court may do
so "within the limits prescribed by law." Nor may the President impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so.
They advance the view that before the right to travel may be impaired by any authority or agency of the government, there must be
legislation to that effect.

The petitioners further assert that under international law, the right of Mr. Marcos and his family to return to the Philippines is
guaranteed.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides:

Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Likewise, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which had been ratified by the Philippines, provides:

Article 12

1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement
and freedom to choose his residence.

2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are
necessary to protect national security, public order (order public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms
of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

On the other hand, the respondents' principal argument is that the issue in this case involves a political question which is non-
justiciable. According to the Solicitor General:

As petitioners couch it, the question involved is simply whether or not petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and his
family have the right to travel and liberty of abode. Petitioners invoke these constitutional rights in vacuo without
reference to attendant circumstances.

Respondents submit that in its proper formulation, the issue is whether or not petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and
family have the right to return to the Philippines and reside here at this time in the face of the determination by the
President that such return and residence will endanger national security and public safety.

It may be conceded that as formulated by petitioners, the question is not a political question as it involves merely a
determination of what the law provides on the matter and application thereof to petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and
family. But when the question is whether the two rights claimed by petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family
impinge on or collide with the more primordial and transcendental right of the State to security and safety of its
nationals, the question becomes political and this Honorable Court can not consider it.

There are thus gradations to the question, to wit:

Do petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family have the right to return to the Philippines and reestablish their
residence here? This is clearly a justiciable question which this Honorable Court can decide.

Do petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family have their right to return to the Philippines and reestablish their
residence here even if their return and residence here will endanger national security and public safety? this is still a
justiciable question which this Honorable Court can decide.

Is there danger to national security and public safety if petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family shall return to the
Philippines and establish their residence here? This is now a political question which this Honorable Court can not
 decide for it falls within the exclusive authority and competence of the President of the Philippines. [Memorandum
for Respondents, pp. 9-11; Rollo, pp. 297-299.]

Respondents argue for the primacy of the right of the State to national security over individual rights. In support thereof, they cite
Article II of the Constitution, to wit:

Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the
people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by
law, to render personal, military, or civil service.

Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the
general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.

Respondents also point out that the decision to ban Mr. Marcos and family from returning to the Philippines for reasons of national
security and public safety has international precedents. Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Anastacio Somoza Jr. of
Nicaragua, Jorge Ubico of Guatemala, Fulgencio batista of Cuba, King Farouk of Egypt, Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez of El
Salvador, and Marcos Perez Jimenez of Venezuela were among the deposed dictators whose return to their homelands was prevented
by their governments. [See Statement of Foreign Affairs Secretary Raul S. Manglapus, quoted in Memorandum for Respondents, pp.
26-32; Rollo, pp. 314-319.]

The parties are in agreement that the underlying issue is one of the scope of presidential power and its limits. We, however, view this
issue in a different light. Although we give due weight to the parties' formulation of the issues, we are not bound by its narrow
confines in arriving at a solution to the controversy.

At the outset, we must state that it would not do to view the case within the confines of the right to travel and the import of the
decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in the leading cases of Kent v. Dulles [357 U.S. 116, 78 SCt 1113, 2 L Ed. 2d 1204] and Haig v.
Agee [453 U.S. 280, 101 SCt 2766, 69 L Ed. 2d 640) which affirmed the right to travel and recognized exceptions to the exercise
thereof, respectively.

It must be emphasized that the individual right involved is not the right to travel from the Philippines to other countries or within the
Philippines. These are what the right to travel would normally connote. Essentially, the right involved is the right to return to one's
country, a totally distinct right under international law, independent from although related to the right to travel. Thus, the Universal
Declaration of Humans Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treat the right to freedom of movement and
abode within the territory of a state, the right to leave a country, and the right to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights. The
Declaration speaks of the "right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state" [Art. 13(l)] separately from
the "right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." [Art. 13(2).] On the other hand, the Covenant
guarantees the "right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence" [Art. 12(l)] and the right to "be free to leave any
country, including his own." [Art. 12(2)] which rights may be restricted by such laws as "are necessary to protect national security,
public order, public health or morals or enter qqqs own country" of which one cannot be "arbitrarily deprived." [Art. 12(4).] It would
therefore be inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to one's country in the same context as those pertaining to
the liberty of abode and the right to travel.

The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which treats only of the liberty
of abode and the right to travel, but it is our well-considered view that the right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted
principle of international law and, under our Constitution, is part of the law of the land [Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.] However, it
is distinct and separate from the right to travel and enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant of Civil and Political
Rights, i.e., against being "arbitrarily deprived" thereof [Art. 12 (4).]

Thus, the rulings in the cases Kent and Haig which refer to the issuance of passports for the purpose of effectively exercising the right
to travel are not determinative of this case and are only tangentially material insofar as they relate to a conflict between executive
action and the exercise of a protected right. The issue before the Court is novel and without precedent in Philippine, and even in
American jurisprudence.

Consequently, resolution by the Court of the well-debated issue of whether or not there can be limitations on the right to travel in the
absence of legislation to that effect is rendered unnecessary. An appropriate case for its resolution will have to be awaited.

Having clarified the substance of the legal issue, we find now a need to explain the methodology for its resolution. Our resolution of
the issue will involve a two-tiered approach. We shall first resolve whether or not the President has the power under the Constitution,
to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. Then, we shall determine, pursuant to the express power of the Court under the
Constitution in Article VIII, Section 1, whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction when she determined that the return of the Marcose's to the Philippines poses a serious threat to national
interest and welfare and decided to bar their return.

Executive Power

The 1987 Constitution has fully restored the separation of powers of the three great branches of government. To recall the words of
Justice Laurel in Angara v. Electoral Commission [63 Phil. 139 (1936)], "the Constitution has blocked but with deft strokes and in
bold lines, allotment of power to the executive, the legislative and the judicial departments of the government." [At 157.1 Thus, the
1987 Constitution explicitly provides that "[the legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines" Art VI, Sec. 11,
"[t]he executive power shall bevested in the President of the Philippines" [Art. VII, Sec. 11, and "[te judicial power shall be vested in
one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law" [Art. VIII, Sec. 1.] These provisions not only establish a
separation of powers by actual division [Angara v. Electoral Commission, supra] but also confer plenary legislative, executive and
judicial powers subject only to limitations provided in the Constitution. For as the Supreme Court inOcampo v. Cabangis [15 Phil. 626
(1910)] pointed out "a grant of the legislative power means a grant of all legislative power; and a grant of the judicial power means a
grant of all the judicial power which may be exercised under the government." [At 631-632.1 If this can be said of the legislative
power which is exercised by two chambers with a combined membership of more than two hundred members and of the judicial
power which is vested in a hierarchy of courts, it can equally be said of the executive power which is vested in one official the
President.

As stated above, the Constitution provides that "[t]he executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines." [Art. VII,
Sec. 1]. However, it does not define what is meant by executive power" although in the same article it touches on the exercise of
certain powers by the President, i.e., the power of control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices, the power to execute the
laws, the appointing power, the powers under the commander-in-chief clause, the power to grant reprieves, commutations and
pardons, the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of Congress, the power to contract or guarantee foreign loans, the power to
enter into treaties or international agreements, the power to submit the budget to Congress, and the power to address Congress [Art.
VII, Sec. 14-23].

The inevitable question then arises: by enumerating certain powers of the President did the framers of the Constitution intend that the
President shall exercise those specific powers and no other? Are these se enumerated powers the breadth and scope of "executive
power"? Petitioners advance the view that the President's powers are limited to those specifically enumerated in the 1987 Constitution.
Thus, they assert: "The President has enumerated powers, and what is not enumerated is impliedly denied to her. Inclusion unius est
exclusio alterius[Memorandum for Petitioners, p. 4- Rollo p. 233.1 This argument brings to mind the institution of the U.S. Presidency
after which ours is legally patterned.**

Corwin, in his monumental volume on the President of the United States grappled with the same problem. He said:

Article II is the most loosely drawn chapter of the Constitution. To those who think that a constitution ought to settle
everything beforehand it should be a nightmare; by the same token, to those who think that constitution makers
ought to leave considerable leeway for the future play of political forces, it should be a vision realized.

We encounter this characteristic of Article 11 in its opening words: "The executive power shall be vested in a
President of the United States of America." . . .. [The President: Office and Powers, 17871957, pp. 3-4.]

Reviewing how the powers of the U.S. President were exercised by the different persons who held the office from Washington to the
early 1900's, and the swing from the presidency by commission to Lincoln's dictatorship, he concluded that "what the presidency is at
any particular moment depends in important measure on who is President." [At 30.]

This view is shared by Schlesinger who wrote in The Imperial Presidency:

For the American Presidency was a peculiarly personal institution. it remained of course, an agency of government
subject to unvarying demands and duties no remained, of cas President. But, more than most agencies of
government, it changed shape, intensity and ethos according to the man in charge. Each President's distinctive
temperament and character, his values, standards, style, his habits, expectations, Idiosyncrasies, compulsions,
phobias recast the WhiteHouse and pervaded the entire government. The executive branch, said Clark Clifford, was
a chameleon, taking its color from the character and personality of the President. The thrust of the office, its impact
on the constitutional order, therefore altered from President to President. Above all, the way each President
understood it as his personal obligation to inform and involve the Congress, to earn and hold the confidence of the
electorate and to render an accounting to the nation and posterity determined whether he strengthened or weakened
the constitutional order. [At 212- 213.]
We do not say that the presidency is what Mrs. Aquino says it is or what she does but, rather, that the consideration of tradition and
the development of presidential power under the different constitutions are essential for a complete understanding of the extent of and
limitations to the President's powers under the 1987 Constitution. The 1935 Constitution created a strong President with explicitly
broader powers than the U.S. President. The 1973 Constitution attempted to modify the system of government into the parliamentary
type, with the President as a mere figurehead, but through numerous amendments, the President became even more powerful, to the
point that he was also the de facto Legislature. The 1987 Constitution, however, brought back the presidential system of government
and restored the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers by their actual distribution among three distinct branches of
government with provision for checks and balances.

It would not be accurate, however, to state that "executive power" is the power to enforce the laws, for the President is head of state as
well as head of government and whatever powers inhere in such positions pertain to the office unless the Constitution itself withholds
it. Furthermore, the Constitution itself provides that the execution of the laws is only one of the powers of the President. It also grants
the President other powers that do not involve the execution of any provision of law, e.g., his power over the country's foreign
relations.

On these premises, we hold the view that although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise ofspecific powers of the
President, it maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope of "executive power." Corollarily, the powers of the
President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, executive power is
more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated,

It has been advanced that whatever power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive. Thus,
in the landmark decision of Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189 (1928), on the issue of who between the
Governor-General of the Philippines and the Legislature may vote the shares of stock held by the Government to elect directors in the
National Coal Company and the Philippine National Bank, the U.S. Supreme Court, in upholding the power of the Governor-General
to do so, said:

...Here the members of the legislature who constitute a majority of the "board" and "committee" respectively, are not
charged with the performance of any legislative functions or with the doing of anything which is in aid of
performance of any such functions by the legislature. Putting aside for the moment the question whether the duties
devolved upon these members are vested by the Organic Act in the Governor-General, it is clear that they are not
legislative in character, and still more clear that they are not judicial. The fact that they do not fall within the
authority of either of these two constitutes logical ground for concluding that they do fall within that of the
remaining one among which the powers of government are divided ....[At 202-203; Emphasis supplied.]

We are not unmindful of Justice Holmes' strong dissent. But in his enduring words of dissent we find reinforcement for the view that it
would indeed be a folly to construe the powers of a branch of government to embrace only what are specifically mentioned in the
Constitution:

The great ordinances of the Constitution do not establish and divide fields of black and white. Even the more
specific of them are found to terminate in a penumbra shading gradually from one extreme to the other. ....

xxx xxx xxx

It does not seem to need argument to show that however we may disguise it by veiling words we do not and cannot
carry out the distinction between legislative and executive action with mathematical precision and divide the
branches into watertight compartments, were it ever so desirable to do so, which I am far from believing that it is, or
that the Constitution requires. [At 210- 211.]

The Power Involved

The Constitution declares among the guiding principles that "[t]he prime duty of theGovernment is to serve and protect the people"
and that "[t]he maintenance of peace and order,the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare
are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy." [Art. II, Secs. 4 and 5.]

Admittedly, service and protection of the people, the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and property, and
the promotion of the general welfare are essentially ideals to guide governmental action. But such does not mean that they are empty
words. Thus, in the exercise of presidential functions, in drawing a plan of government, and in directing implementing action for these
plans, or from another point of view, in making any decision as President of the Republic, the President has to consider these
principles, among other things, and adhere to them.
Faced with the problem of whether or not the time is right to allow the Marcoses to return to the Philippines, the President is, under
the Constitution, constrained to consider these basic principles in arriving at a decision. More than that, having sworn to defend and
uphold the Constitution, the President has the obligation under the Constitution to protect the people, promote their welfare and
advance the national interest. It must be borne in mind that the Constitution, aside from being an allocation of power is also a social
contract whereby the people have surrendered their sovereign powers to the State for the common good. Hence, lest the officers of the
Government exercising the powers delegated by the people forget and the servants of the people become rulers, the Constitution
reminds everyone that "[s]overeignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them." [Art. II, Sec. 1.]

The resolution of the problem is made difficult because the persons who seek to return to the country are the deposed dictator and his
family at whose door the travails of the country are laid and from whom billions of dollars believed to be ill-gotten wealth are sought
to be recovered. The constitutional guarantees they invoke are neither absolute nor inflexible. For the exercise of even the preferred
freedoms of speech and ofexpression, although couched in absolute terms, admits of limits and must be adjusted to the requirements of
equally important public interests [Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 79690-707, October 7, 1981.]

To the President, the problem is one of balancing the general welfare and the common good against the exercise of rights of certain
individuals. The power involved is the President's residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. It is founded on the duty
of the President, as steward of the people. To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, it is not only the power of the President but also his
duty to do anything not forbidden by the Constitution or the laws that the needs of the nation demand [See Corwin, supra, at 153]. It is
a power borne by the President's duty to preserve and defend the Constitution. It also may be viewed as a power implicit in the
President's duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed [see Hyman, The American President, where the author advances the
view that an allowance of discretionary power is unavoidable in any government and is best lodged in the President].

More particularly, this case calls for the exercise of the President's powers as protector of the peace. Rossiter The American
Presidency].The power of the President to keep the peace is not limited merely to exercising the commander-in-chief powers in times
of emergency or to leading the State against external and internal threats to its existence. The President is not only clothed with
extraordinary powers in times of emergency, but is also tasked with attending to the day-to-day problems of maintaining peace and
order and ensuring domestic tranquility in times when no foreign foe appears on the horizon. Wide discretion, within the bounds of
law, in fulfilling presidential duties in times of peace is not in any way diminished by the relative want of an emergency specified in
the commander-in-chief provision. For in making the President commander-in-chief the enumeration of powers that follow cannot be
said to exclude the President's exercising as Commander-in- Chief powers short of the calling of the armed forces, or suspending the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or declaring martial law, in order to keep the peace, and maintain public order and security.

That the President has the power under the Constitution to bar the Marcose's from returning has been recognized by memembers of the
Legislature, and is manifested by the Resolution proposed in the House of Representatives and signed by 103 of its members urging
the President to allow Mr. Marcos to return to the Philippines "as a genuine unselfish gesture for true national reconciliation and as
irrevocable proof of our collective adherence to uncompromising respect for human rights under the Constitution and our laws."
[House Resolution No. 1342, Rollo, p. 321.1 The Resolution does not question the President's power to bar the Marcoses from
returning to the Philippines, rather, it appeals to the President's sense of compassion to allow a man to come home to die in his
country.

What we are saying in effect is that the request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be
considered in the light solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel, subject to certain
exceptions, or of case law which clearly never contemplated situations even remotely similar to the present one. It must be treated as a
matter that is appropriately addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit in and correlative to the
paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare. In that context, such request or demand should submit
to the exercise of a broader discretion on the part of the President to determine whether it must be granted or denied.

The Extent of Review

Under the Constitution, judicial power includes the duty to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government." [Art. VIII, Sec. 1] Given
this wording, we cannot agree with the Solicitor General that the issue constitutes a political question which is beyond the jurisdiction
of the Court to decide.

The present Constitution limits resort to the political question doctrine and broadens the scope of judicial inquiry into areas which the
Court, under previous constitutions, would have normally left to the political departments to decide. But nonetheless there remain
issues beyond the Court's jurisdiction the determination of which is exclusively for the President, for Congress or for the people
themselves through a plebiscite or referendum. We cannot, for example, question the President's recognition of a foreign government,
no matter how premature or improvident such action may appear. We cannot set aside a presidential pardon though it may appear to us
that the beneficiary is totally undeserving of the grant. Nor can we amend the Constitution under the guise of resolving a dispute
brought before us because the power is reserved to the people.

There is nothing in the case before us that precludes our determination thereof on the political question doctrine. The deliberations of
the Constitutional Commission cited by petitioners show that the framers intended to widen the scope of judicial review but they did
not intend courts of justice to settle all actual controversies before them. When political questions are involved, the Constitution limits
the determination to whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
the official whose action is being questioned. If grave abuse is not established, the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the
official concerned and decide a matter which by its nature or by law is for the latter alone to decide. In this light, it would appear clear
that the second paragraph of Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution, defining "judicial power," which specifically empowers the
courts to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
government, incorporates in the fundamental law the ruling in Lansang v. Garcia [G.R. No. L-33964, December 11, 1971, 42 SCRA
4481 that:]

Article VII of the [1935] Constitution vests in the Executive the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus under specified conditions. Pursuant to the principle of separation of powers underlying our system of
government, the Executive is supreme within his own sphere. However, the separation of powers, under the
Constitution, is not absolute. What is more, it goes hand in hand with the system of checks and balances, under
which the Executive is supreme, as regards the suspension of the privilege, but only if and when he acts within the
sphere alloted to him by the Basic Law, and the authority to determine whether or not he has so acted is vested in the
Judicial Department, which, in this respect, is, in turn, constitutionally supreme. In the exercise of such authority,
the function of the Court is merely to check — not to supplant the Executive, or to ascertain merely whether he has
gone beyond the constitutional limits of his jurisdiction, not to exercise the power vested in him or to determine the
wisdom of his act [At 479-480.]

Accordingly, the question for the Court to determine is whether or not there exist factual bases for the President to conclude that it was
in the national interest to bar the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines. If such postulates do exist, it cannot be said that she has
acted, or acts, arbitrarily or that she has gravely abused her discretion in deciding to bar their return.

We find that from the pleadings filed by the parties, from their oral arguments, and the facts revealed during the briefing in chambers
by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the National Security Adviser, wherein petitioners and respondents
were represented, there exist factual bases for the President's decision..

The Court cannot close its eyes to present realities and pretend that the country is not besieged from within by a well-organized
communist insurgency, a separatist movement in Mindanao, rightist conspiracies to grab power, urban terrorism, the murder with
impunity of military men, police officers and civilian officials, to mention only a few. The documented history of the efforts of the
Marcose's and their followers to destabilize the country, as earlier narrated in this ponencia bolsters the conclusion that the return of
the Marcoses at this time would only exacerbate and intensify the violence directed against the State and instigate more chaos.

As divergent and discordant forces, the enemies of the State may be contained. The military establishment has given assurances that it
could handle the threats posed by particular groups. But it is the catalytic effect of the return of the Marcoses that may prove to be the
proverbial final straw that would break the camel's back. With these before her, the President cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily
and capriciously and whimsically in determining that the return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat to the national interest and
welfare and in prohibiting their return.

It will not do to argue that if the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines will cause the escalation of violence against the State, that
would be the time for the President to step in and exercise the commander-in-chief powers granted her by the Constitution to suppress
or stamp out such violence. The State, acting through the Government, is not precluded from taking pre- emptive action against threats
to its existence if, though still nascent they are perceived as apt to become serious and direct. Protection of the people is the essence of
the duty of government. The preservation of the State the fruition of the people's sovereignty is an obligation in the highest order. The
President, sworn to preserve and defend the Constitution and to see the faithful execution the laws, cannot shirk from that
responsibility.

We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the country is only now beginning to recover from the hardships brought about by the
plunder of the economy attributed to the Marcoses and their close associates and relatives, many of whom are still here in the
Philippines in a position to destabilize the country, while the Government has barely scratched the surface, so to speak, in its efforts to
recover the enormous wealth stashed away by the Marcoses in foreign jurisdictions. Then, We cannot ignore the continually
increasing burden imposed on the economy by the excessive foreign borrowing during the Marcos regime, which stifles and stagnates
development and is one of the root causes of widespread poverty and all its attendant ills. The resulting precarious state of our
economy is of common knowledge and is easily within the ambit of judicial notice.
The President has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during
the past few years and lead to total economic collapse. Given what is within our individual and common knowledge of the state of the
economy, we cannot argue with that determination.

WHEREFORE, and it being our well-considered opinion that the President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in
determining that the return of former President Marcos and his family at the present time and under present circumstances poses a
serious threat to national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines, the instant petition is hereby
DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

EN BANC

G.R. No. 88211 October 27, 1989

FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS. JR., IRENE M. ARANETA, IMEE M.
MANOTOC, TOMAS MANOTOC, GREGORIO ARANETA, PACIFICO E. MARCOS, NICANOR YÑIGUEZ and
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), represented by its President, CONRADO F.
ESTRELLA, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS, CATALINO MACARAIG, SEDFREY ORDOÑEZ, MIRIAM DEFENSOR
SANTIAGO, FIDEL RAMOS, RENATO DE VILLA, in their capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Executive Secretary,
Secretary of Justice, Immigration Commissioner, Secretary of National Defense and Chief of Staff, respectively, respondents.

RESOLUTION

EN BANC:

In its decision dated September 15,1989, the Court, by a vote of eight (8) to seven (7), dismissed the petition, after finding that the
President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of former President Marcos and his
family at the present time and under present circumstances pose a threat to national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return
to the Philippines. On September 28, 1989, former President Marcos died in Honolulu, Hawaii. In a statement, President Aquino said:

In the interest of the safety of those who will take the death of Mr. Marcos in widely and passionately conflicting
ways, and for the tranquility of the state and order of society, the remains of Ferdinand E. Marcos will not be
allowed to be brought to our country until such time as the government, be it under this administration or the
succeeding one, shall otherwise decide. [Motion for Reconsideration, p. 1; Rollo, p, 443.]

On October 2, 1989, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed by petitioners, raising the following major arguments:

1. to bar former President Marcos and his family from returning to the Philippines is to deny them not only the inherent right of
citizens to return to their country of birth but also the protection of the Constitution and all of the rights guaranteed to Filipinos under
the Constitution;

2. the President has no power to bar a Filipino from his own country; if she has, she had exercised it arbitrarily; and

3. there is no basis for barring the return of the family of former President Marcos. Thus, petitioners prayed that the Court reconsider
its decision, order respondents to issue the necessary travel documents to enable Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr.,
Irene M. Araneta, Imee M. Manotoc, Tommy Manotoc and Gregorio Araneta to return to the Philippines, and enjoin respondents from
implementing President Aquino's decision to bar the return of the remains of Mr. Marcos, and the other petitioners, to the Philippines.

Commenting on the motion for reconsideration, the Solicitor General argued that the motion for reconsideration is moot and academic
as to the deceased Mr. Marcos. Moreover, he asserts that "the 'formal' rights being invoked by the Marcoses under the label 'right to
return', including the label 'return of Marcos' remains, is in reality or substance a 'right' to destabilize the country, a 'right' to hide the
Marcoses' incessant shadowy orchestrated efforts at destabilization." [Comment, p. 29.] Thus, he prays that the Motion for
Reconsideration be denied for lack of merit.
We deny the motion for reconsideration.

1. It must be emphasized that as in all motions for reconsideration, the burden is upon the movants, petitioner herein, to show that
there are compelling reasons to reconsider the decision of the Court.

2. After a thorough consideration of the matters raised in the motion for reconsideration, the Court is of the view that no compelling
reasons have been established by petitioners to warrant a reconsideration of the Court's decision.

The death of Mr. Marcos, although it may be viewed as a supervening event, has not changed the factual scenario under which the
Court's decision was rendered. The threats to the government, to which the return of the Marcoses has been viewed to provide a
catalytic effect, have not been shown to have ceased. On the contrary, instead of erasing fears as to the destabilization that will be
caused by the return of the Marcoses, Mrs. Marcos reinforced the basis for the decision to bar their return when she called President
Aquino "illegal," claiming that it is Mr. Marcos, not Mrs. Aquino, who is the "legal" President of the Philippines, and declared that the
matter "should be brought to all the courts of the world." [Comment, p. 1; Philippine Star, October 4, 1989.]

3. Contrary to petitioners' view, it cannot be denied that the President, upon whom executive power is vested, has unstated residual
powers which are implied from the grant of executive power and which are necessary for her to comply with her duties under the
Constitution. The powers of the President are not limited to what are expressly enumerated in the article on the Executive Department
and in scattered provisions of the Constitution. This is so, notwithstanding the avowed intent of the members of the Constitutional
Commission of 1986 to limit the powers of the President as a reaction to the abuses under the regime of Mr. Marcos, for the result was
a limitation of specific power of the President, particularly those relating to the commander-in-chief clause, but not a diminution of the
general grant of executive power.

That the President has powers other than those expressly stated in the Constitution is nothing new. This is recognized under the U.S.
Constitution from which we have patterned the distribution of governmental powers among three (3) separate branches.

Article II, [section] 1, provides that "The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America." In Alexander Hamilton's widely accepted view, this statement cannot be read as mere shorthand for the
specific executive authorizations that follow it in [sections] 2 and 3. Hamilton stressed the difference between the
sweeping language of article II, section 1, and the conditional language of article I, [section] 1: "All legislative
Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . ." Hamilton submitted that "[t]he [article
III enumeration [in sections 2 and 31 ought therefore to be considered, as intended merely to specify the principal
articles implied in the definition of execution power; leaving the rest to flow from the general grant of that power,
interpreted in confomity with other parts of the Constitution...

In Myers v. United States, the Supreme Court — accepted Hamilton's proposition, concluding that the federal
executive, unlike the Congress, could exercise power from sources not enumerated, so long as not forbidden by the
constitutional text: the executive power was given in general terms, strengthened by specific terms where emphasis
was regarded as appropriate, and was limited by direct expressions where limitation was needed. . ." The language
of Chief Justice Taft in Myers makes clear that the constitutional concept of inherent power is not a synonym for
power without limit; rather, the concept suggests only that not all powers granted in the Constitution are themselves
exhausted by internal enumeration, so that, within a sphere properly regarded as one of "executive' power, authority
is implied unless there or elsewhere expressly limited. [TRIBE, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 158-159
(1978).]

And neither can we subscribe to the view that a recognition of the President's implied or residual powers is tantamount to setting the
stage for another dictatorship. Despite petitioners' strained analogy, the residual powers of the President under the Constitution should
not be confused with the power of the President under the 1973 Constitution to legislate pursuant to Amendment No. 6 which
provides:

Whenever in the judgment of the President (Prime Minister), there exists a grave emergency or a threat or
imminence thereof, or whenever the interim Batasang Pambansa or the regular National Assembly fails or is unable
to act adequately on any matter for any reason that in his judgment requires immediate action, he may, in order to
meet the exigency, issue the necessary decrees, orders, or letters of instruction, which shall form part of the law of
the land,

There is no similarity between the residual powers of the President under the 1987 Constitution and the power of the President under
the 1973 Constitution pursuant to Amendment No. 6. First of all, Amendment No. 6 refers to an express grant of power. It is not
implied. Then, Amendment No. 6 refers to a grant to the President of thespecific power of legislation.
4. Among the duties of the President under the Constitution, in compliance with his (or her) oath of office, is to protect and promote
the interest and welfare of the people. Her decision to bar the return of the Marcoses and subsequently, the remains of Mr. Marcos at
the present time and under present circumstances is in compliance with this bounden duty. In the absence of a clear showing that she
had acted with arbitrariness or with grave abuse of discretion in arriving at this decision, the Court will not enjoin the implementation
of this decision.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit."

EN BANC

G.R. No. 146710-15 March 2, 2001

JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, petitioner,

vs.
ANIANO DESIERTO, in his capacity as Ombudsman, RAMON GONZALES, VOLUNTEERS AGAINST CRIME AND
CORRUPTION, GRAFT FREE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION, INC., LEONARD DE VERA, DENNIS FUNA, ROMEO
CAPULONG and ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR.,respondent.

----------------------------------------

G.R. No. 146738 March 2, 2001

JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, petitioner,

vs.
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, respondent.

PUNO, J.:

On the line in the cases at bar is the office of the President. Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada alleges that he is the President on leave
while respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo claims she is the President. The warring personalities are important enough but more
transcendental are the constitutional issues embedded on the parties' dispute. While the significant issues are many, the jugular issue
involves the relationship between the ruler and the ruled in a democracy, Philippine style.

First, we take a view of the panorama of events that precipitated the crisis in the office of the President.

In the May 11, 1998 elections, petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada was elected President while respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
was elected Vice-President. Some ten (10) million Filipinos voted for the petitioner believing he would rescue them from life's
adversity. Both petitioner and the respondent were to serve a six-year term commencing on June 30, 1998.

From the beginning of his term, however, petitioner was plagued by a plethora of problems that slowly but surely eroded his
popularity. His sharp descent from power started on October 4, 2000. Ilocos Sur Governor, Luis "Chavit" Singson, a longtime friend
of the petitioner, went on air and accused the petitioner, his family and friends of receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords.1

The exposẻ immediately ignited reactions of rage. The next day, October 5, 2000, Senator Teofisto Guingona, Jr., then the Senate
Minority Leader, took the floor and delivered a fiery privilege speech entitled "I Accuse." He accused the petitioner of receiving some
P220 million injueteng money from Governor Singson from November 1998 to August 2000. He also charged that the petitioner took
from Governor Singson P70 million on excise tax on cigarettes intended for Ilocos Sur. The privilege speech was referred by then
Senate President Franklin Drilon, to the Blue Ribbon Committee (then headed by Senator Aquilino Pimentel) and the Committee on
Justice (then headed by Senator Renato Cayetano) for joint investigation.2

The House of Representatives did no less. The House Committee on Public Order and Security, then headed by Representative Roilo
Golez, decided to investigate the exposẻ of Governor Singson. On the other hand, Representatives Heherson Alvarez, Ernesto Herrera
and Michael Defensor spearheaded the move to impeach the petitioner.

Calls for the resignation of the petitioner filled the air. On October 11, Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin issued a pastoral statement in
behalf of the Presbyteral Council of the Archdiocese of Manila, asking petitioner to step down from the presidency as he had lost the
moral authority to govern.3 Two days later or on October 13, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines joined the cry for the
resignation of the petitioner.4 Four days later, or on October 17, former President Corazon C. Aquino also demanded that the petitioner
take the "supreme self-sacrifice" of resignation.5 Former President Fidel Ramos also joined the chorus. Early on, or on October 12,
respondent Arroyo resigned as Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Services6 and later asked for petitioner's
resignation.7 However, petitioner strenuously held on to his office and refused to resign.

The heat was on. On November 1, four (4) senior economic advisers, members of the Council of Senior Economic Advisers, resigned.
They were Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala, former Prime Minister Cesar Virata, former Senator Vicente Paterno and Washington
Sycip.8 On November 2, Secretary Mar Roxas II also resigned from the Department of Trade and Industry.9 On November 3, Senate
President Franklin Drilon, and House Speaker Manuel Villar, together with some 47 representatives defected from the ruling coalition,
Lapian ng Masang Pilipino.10

The month of November ended with a big bang. In a tumultuous session on November 13, House Speaker Villar transmitted the
Articles of Impeachment11 signed by 115 representatives, or more than 1/3 of all the members of the House of Representatives to the
Senate. This caused political convulsions in both houses of Congress. Senator Drilon was replaced by Senator Pimentel as Senate
President. Speaker Villar was unseated by Representative Fuentebella.12 On November 20, the Senate formally opened the
impeachment trial of the petitioner. Twenty-one (21) senators took their oath as judges with Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario G.
Davide, Jr., presiding.13

The political temperature rose despite the cold December. On December 7, the impeachment trial started.14 The battle royale was
fought by some of the marquee names in the legal profession. Standing as prosecutors were then House Minority Floor Leader
Feliciano Belmonte and Representatives Joker Arroyo, Wigberto Tañada, Sergio Apostol, Raul Gonzales, Oscar Moreno, Salacnib
Baterina, Roan Libarios, Oscar Rodriguez, Clavel Martinez and Antonio Nachura. They were assisted by a battery of private
prosecutors led by now Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez and now Solicitor General Simeon Marcelo. Serving as defense counsel
were former Chief Justice Andres Narvasa, former Solicitor General and Secretary of Justice Estelito P. Mendoza, former City Fiscal
of Manila Jose Flaminiano, former Deputy Speaker of the House Raul Daza, Atty. Siegfried Fortun and his brother, Atty. Raymund
Fortun. The day to day trial was covered by live TV and during its course enjoyed the highest viewing rating. Its high and low points
were the constant conversational piece of the chattering classes. The dramatic point of the December hearings was the testimony of
Clarissa Ocampo, senior vice president of Equitable-PCI Bank. She testified that she was one foot away from petitioner Estrada when
he affixed the signature "Jose Velarde" on documents involving a P500 million investment agreement with their bank on February 4,
2000.15

After the testimony of Ocampo, the impeachment trial was adjourned in the spirit of Christmas. When it resumed on January 2, 2001,
more bombshells were exploded by the prosecution. On January 11, Atty. Edgardo Espiritu who served as petitioner's Secretary of
Finance took the witness stand. He alleged that the petitioner jointly owned BW Resources Corporation with Mr. Dante Tan who was
facing charges of insider trading.16 Then came the fateful day of January 16, when by a vote of 11-1017 the senator-judges ruled against
the opening of the second envelope which allegedly contained evidence showing that petitioner held P3.3 billion in a secret bank
account under the name "Jose Velarde." The public and private prosecutors walked out in protest of the ruling. In disgust, Senator
Pimentel resigned as Senate President.18 The ruling made at 10:00 p.m. was met by a spontaneous outburst of anger that hit the streets
of the metropolis. By midnight, thousands had assembled at the EDSA Shrine and speeches full of sulphur were delivered against the
petitioner and the eleven (11) senators.

On January 17, the public prosecutors submitted a letter to Speaker Fuentebella tendering their collective resignation. They also filed
their Manifestation of Withdrawal of Appearance with the impeachment tribunal.19 Senator Raul Roco quickly moved for the
indefinite postponement of the impeachment proceedings until the House of Representatives shall have resolved the issue of
resignation of the public prosecutors. Chief Justice Davide granted the motion.20

January 18 saw the high velocity intensification of the call for petitioner's resignation. A 10-kilometer line of people holding lighted
candles formed a human chain from the Ninoy Aquino Monument on Ayala Avenue in Makati City to the EDSA Shrine to symbolize
the people's solidarity in demanding petitioner's resignation. Students and teachers walked out of their classes in Metro Manila to
show their concordance. Speakers in the continuing rallies at the EDSA Shrine, all masters of the physics of persuasion, attracted more
and more people.21

On January 19, the fall from power of the petitioner appeared inevitable. At 1:20 p.m., the petitioner informed Executive Secretary
Edgardo Angara that General Angelo Reyes, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, had defected. At 2:30 p.m.,
petitioner agreed to the holding of a snap election for President where he would not be a candidate. It did not diffuse the growing
crisis. At 3:00 p.m., Secretary of National Defense Orlando Mercado and General Reyes, together with the chiefs of all the armed
services went to the EDSA Shrine.22 In the presence of former Presidents Aquino and Ramos and hundreds of thousands of cheering
demonstrators, General Reyes declared that "on behalf of Your Armed Forces, the 130,000 strong members of the Armed Forces, we
wish to announce that we are withdrawing our support to this government."23 A little later, PNP Chief, Director General Panfilo
Lacson and the major service commanders gave a similar stunning announcement.24 Some Cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries,
assistant secretaries, and bureau chiefs quickly resigned from their posts.25Rallies for the resignation of the petitioner exploded in
various parts of the country. To stem the tide of rage, petitioner announced he was ordering his lawyers to agree to the opening of the
highly controversial second envelope.26 There was no turning back the tide. The tide had become a tsunami.

January 20 turned to be the day of surrender. At 12:20 a.m., the first round of negotiations for the peaceful and orderly transfer of
power started at Malacañang'' Mabini Hall, Office of the Executive Secretary. Secretary Edgardo Angara, Senior Deputy Executive
Secretary Ramon Bagatsing, Political Adviser Angelito Banayo, Asst. Secretary Boying Remulla, and Atty. Macel Fernandez, head of
the Presidential Management Staff, negotiated for the petitioner. Respondent Arroyo was represented by now Executive Secretary
Renato de Villa, now Secretary of Finance Alberto Romulo and now Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez.27 Outside the palace, there
was a brief encounter at Mendiola between pro and anti-Estrada protesters which resulted in stone-throwing and caused minor injuries.
The negotiations consumed all morning until the news broke out that Chief Justice Davide would administer the oath to respondent
Arroyo at high noon at the EDSA Shrine.

At about 12:00 noon, Chief Justice Davide administered the oath to respondent Arroyo as President of the Philippines.28 At 2:30 p.m.,
petitioner and his family hurriedly left Malacañang Palace.29 He issued the following press statement:30

"20 January 2001

STATEMENT FROM

PRESIDENT JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA

At twelve o'clock noon today, Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took her oath as President of the Republic of the
Philippines. While along with many other legal minds of our country, I have strong and serious doubts about the legality and
constitutionality of her proclamation as President, I do not wish to be a factor that will prevent the restoration of unity and
order in our civil society.

It is for this reason that I now leave Malacañang Palace, the seat of the presidency of this country, for the sake of peace and
in order to begin the healing process of our nation. I leave the Palace of our people with gratitude for the opportunities given
to me for service to our people. I will not shirk from any future challenges that may come ahead in the same service of our
country.

I call on all my supporters and followers to join me in to promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and
solidarity.

May the Almighty bless our country and beloved people.

MABUHAY!

(Sgd.) JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA"

It also appears that on the same day, January 20, 2001, he signed the following letter:31

"Sir:

By virtue of the provisions of Section 11, Article VII of the Constitution, I am hereby transmitting this declaration that I am
unable to exercise the powers and duties of my office. By operation of law and the Constitution, the Vice-President shall be
the Acting President.

(Sgd.) JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA"

A copy of the letter was sent to former Speaker Fuentebella at 8:30 a.m. on January 20.23 Another copy was transmitted to Senate
President Pimentel on the same day although it was received only at 9:00 p.m.33

On January 22, the Monday after taking her oath, respondent Arroyo immediately discharged the powers the duties of the Presidency.
On the same day, this Court issued the following Resolution in Administrative Matter No. 01-1-05-SC, to wit:

"A.M. No. 01-1-05-SC — In re: Request of Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to Take her Oath of Office as President
of the Republic of the Philippines before the Chief Justice — Acting on the urgent request of Vice President Gloria
 Macapagal-Arroyo to be sworn in as President of the Republic of the Philippines, addressed to the Chief Justice and
confirmed by a letter to the Court, dated January 20, 2001, which request was treated as an administrative matter, the court
Resolve unanimously to confirm the authority given by the twelve (12) members of the Court then present to the Chief
Justice on January 20, 2001 to administer the oath of office of Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the
Philippines, at noon of January 20, 2001.1âwphi1.nêt

This resolution is without prejudice to the disposition of any justiciable case that may be filed by a proper party."

Respondent Arroyo appointed members of her Cabinet as well as ambassadors and special envoys.34 Recognition of respondent
Arroyo's government by foreign governments swiftly followed. On January 23, in a reception or vin d' honneur at Malacañang, led by
the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, Papal Nuncio Antonio Franco, more than a hundred foreign diplomats recognized the government
of respondent Arroyo.35US President George W. Bush gave the respondent a telephone call from the White House conveying US
recognition of her government.36

On January 24, Representative Feliciano Belmonte was elected new Speaker of the House of Representatives.37 The House then
passed Resolution No. 175 "expressing the full support of the House of Representatives to the administration of Her Excellency,
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines."38 It also approved Resolution No. 176 "expressing the support of the House
of Representatives to the assumption into office by Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Republic of the
Philippines, extending its congratulations and expressing its support for her administration as a partner in the attainment of the nation's
goals under the Constitution."39

On January 26, the respondent signed into law the Solid Waste Management Act.40 A few days later, she also signed into law the
Political Advertising ban and Fair Election Practices Act.41

On February 6, respondent Arroyo nominated Senator Teofisto Guingona, Jr., as her Vice President.42 The next day, February 7, the
Senate adopted Resolution No. 82 confirming the nomination of Senator Guingona, Jr.43 Senators Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Juan
Ponce Enrile, and John Osmena voted "yes" with reservations, citing as reason therefor the pending challenge on the legitimacy of
respondent Arroyo's presidency before the Supreme Court. Senators Teresa Aquino-Oreta and Robert Barbers were absent.44 The
House of Representatives also approved Senator Guingona's nomination in Resolution No. 178.45 Senator Guingona, Jr. took his oath
as Vice President two (2) days later.46

On February 7, the Senate passed Resolution No. 83 declaring that the impeachment court is functus officio and has been
terminated.47Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago stated "for the record" that she voted against the closure of the impeachment court on
the grounds that the Senate had failed to decide on the impeachment case and that the resolution left open the question of whether
Estrada was still qualified to run for another elective post.48

Meanwhile, in a survey conducted by Pulse Asia, President Arroyo's public acceptance rating jacked up from 16% on January 20,
2001 to 38% on January 26, 2001.49 In another survey conducted by the ABS-CBN/SWS from February 2-7, 2001, results showed that
61% of the Filipinos nationwide accepted President Arroyo as replacement of petitioner Estrada. The survey also revealed that
President Arroyo is accepted by 60% in Metro Manila, by also 60% in the balance of Luzon, by 71% in the Visayas, and 55% in
Mindanao. Her trust rating increased to 52%. Her presidency is accepted by majorities in all social classes: 58% in the ABC or
middle-to-upper classes, 64% in the D or mass class, and 54% among the E's or very poor class.50

After his fall from the pedestal of power, the petitioner's legal problems appeared in clusters. Several cases previously filed against
him in the Office of the Ombudsman were set in motion. These are: (1) OMB Case No. 0-00-1629, filed by Ramon A. Gonzales on
October 23, 2000 for bribery and graft and corruption; (2) OMB Case No. 0-00-1754 filed by the Volunteers Against Crime and
Corruption on November 17, 2000 for plunder, forfeiture, graft and corruption, bribery, perjury, serious misconduct, violation of the
Code of Conduct for Government Employees, etc; (3) OMB Case No. 0-00-1755 filed by the Graft Free Philippines Foundation, Inc.
on November 24, 2000 for plunder, forfeiture, graft and corruption, bribery, perjury, serious misconduct; (4) OMB Case No. 0-00-
1756 filed by Romeo Capulong, et al., on November 28, 2000 for malversation of public funds, illegal use of public funds and
property, plunder, etc.; (5) OMB Case No. 0-00-1757 filed by Leonard de Vera, et al., on November 28, 2000 for bribery, plunder,
indirect bribery, violation of PD 1602, PD 1829, PD 46, and RA 7080; and (6) OMB Case No. 0-00-1758 filed by Ernesto B.
Francisco, Jr. on December 4, 2000 for plunder, graft and corruption.

A special panel of investigators was forthwith created by the respondent Ombudsman to investigate the charges against the petitioner.
It is chaired by Overall Deputy Ombudsman Margarito P. Gervasio with the following as members, viz: Director Andrew Amuyutan,
Prosecutor Pelayo Apostol, Atty. Jose de Jesus and Atty. Emmanuel Laureso. On January 22, the panel issued an Order directing the
petitioner to file his counter-affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses as well as other supporting documents in answer to the
aforementioned complaints against him.
Thus, the stage for the cases at bar was set. On February 5, petitioner filed with this Court GR No. 146710-15, a petition for
prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. It sought to enjoin the respondent Ombudsman from "conducting any
further proceedings in Case Nos. OMB 0-00-1629, 1754, 1755, 1756, 1757 and 1758 or in any other criminal complaint that may be
filed in his office, until after the term of petitioner as President is over and only if legally warranted." Thru another counsel, petitioner,
on February 6, filed GR No. 146738 for Quo Warranto. He prayed for judgment "confirming petitioner to be the lawful and incumbent
President of the Republic of the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge the duties of his office, and declaring respondent to have
taken her oath as and to be holding the Office of the President, only in an acting capacity pursuant to the provisions of the
Constitution." Acting on GR Nos. 146710-15, the Court, on the same day, February 6, required the respondents "to comment thereon
within a non-extendible period expiring on 12 February 2001." On February 13, the Court ordered the consolidation of GR Nos.
146710-15 and GR No. 146738 and the filing of the respondents' comments "on or before 8:00 a.m. of February 15."

On February 15, the consolidated cases were orally argued in a four-hour hearing. Before the hearing, Chief Justice Davide, Jr.51 and
Associate Justice Artemio Panganiban52 recused themselves on motion of petitioner's counsel, former Senator Rene A. Saguisag. They
debunked the charge of counsel Saguisag that they have "compromised themselves by indicating that they have thrown their weight on
one side" but nonetheless inhibited themselves. Thereafter, the parties were given the short period of five (5) days to file their
memoranda and two (2) days to submit their simultaneous replies.

In a resolution dated February 20, acting on the urgent motion for copies of resolution and press statement for "Gag Order" on
respondent Ombudsman filed by counsel for petitioner in G.R. No. 146738, the Court resolved:

"(1) to inform the parties that the Court did not issue a resolution on January 20, 2001 declaring the office of the President
vacant and that neither did the Chief Justice issue a press statement justifying the alleged resolution;

(2) to order the parties and especially their counsel who are officers of the Court under pain of being cited for contempt to
refrain from making any comment or discussing in public the merits of the cases at bar while they are still pending decision
by the Court, and

(3) to issue a 30-day status quo order effective immediately enjoining the respondent Ombudsman from resolving or deciding
the criminal cases pending investigation in his office against petitioner, Joseph E. Estrada and subject of the cases at bar, it
appearing from news reports that the respondent Ombudsman may immediately resolve the cases against petitioner Joseph E.
Estrada seven (7) days after the hearing held on February 15, 2001, which action will make the cases at bar moot and
academic."53

The parties filed their replies on February 24. On this date, the cases at bar were deemed submitted for decision.

The bedrock issues for resolution of this Court are:

Whether the petitions present a justiciable controversy.

II

Assuming that the petitions present a justiciable controversy, whether petitioner Estrada is a President on leave while
respondent Arroyo is an Acting President.

III

Whether conviction in the impeachment proceedings is a condition precedent for the criminal prosecution of petitioner
Estrada. In the negative and on the assumption that petitioner is still President, whether he is immune from criminal
prosecution.

IV

Whether the prosecution of petitioner Estrada should be enjoined on the ground of prejudicial publicity.

We shall discuss the issues in seriatim.

 I

Whether or not the cases at bar involve a political question

Private respondents54 raise the threshold issue that the cases at bar pose a political question, and hence, are beyond the jurisdiction of
this Court to decide. They contend that shorn of its embroideries, the cases at bar assail the "legitimacy of the Arroyo administration."
They stress that respondent Arroyo ascended the presidency through people power; that she has already taken her oath as the
14th President of the Republic; that she has exercised the powers of the presidency and that she has been recognized by foreign
governments. They submit that these realities on ground constitute the political thicket, which the Court cannot enter.

We reject private respondents' submission. To be sure, courts here and abroad, have tried to lift the shroud on political question but its
exact latitude still splits the best of legal minds. Developed by the courts in the 20th century, the political question doctrine which rests
on the principle of separation of powers and on prudential considerations, continue to be refined in the mills of constitutional law.55 In
the United States, the most authoritative guidelines to determine whether a question is political were spelled out by Mr. Justice
Brennan in the 1962 case or Baker v. Carr,56 viz:

"x x x Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable
constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department or a lack of judicially discoverable and
manageable standards for resolving it, or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind
clearly for non-judicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing
lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political
decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on
question. Unless one of these formulations is inextricable from the case at bar, there should be no dismissal for non
justiciability on the ground of a political question's presence. The doctrine of which we treat is one of 'political questions', not
of 'political cases'."

In the Philippine setting, this Court has been continuously confronted with cases calling for a firmer delineation of the inner and outer
perimeters of a political question.57 Our leading case is Tanada v. Cuenco,58 where this Court, through former Chief Justice Roberto
Concepcion, held that political questions refer "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." To a great degree,
the 1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine when it expanded the power of judicial review of this
court not only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable but also to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch
or instrumentality of government.59 Heretofore, the judiciary has focused on the "thou shalt not's" of the Constitution directed
against the exercise of its jurisdiction.60 With the new provision, however, courts are given a greater prerogative to determine what it
can do to prevent grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of
government. Clearly, the new provision did not just grant the Court power of doing nothing. In sync and symmetry with this
intent are other provisions of the 1987 Constitution trimming the so called political thicket. Prominent of these provisions is section 18
of Article VII which empowers this Court in limpid language to "x x x review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ (of habeas corpus) or
the extension thereof x x x."

Respondents rely on the case of Lawyers League for a Better Philippines and/or Oliver A. Lozano v. President Corazon C.
Aquino, et al.61 and related cases62 to support their thesis that since the cases at bar involve the legitimacy of the government of
respondent Arroyo, ergo, they present a political question. A more cerebral reading of the cited cases will show that they are
inapplicable. In the cited cases, we held that the government of former President Aquino was the result of a successful revolution by
the sovereign people, albeit a peaceful one. No less than the Freedom Constitution63 declared that the Aquino government was
installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people "in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution, as
amended." In is familiar learning that the legitimacy of a government sired by a successful revolution by people power is beyond
judicial scrutiny for that government automatically orbits out of the constitutional loop. In checkered contrast, the government of
respondent Arroyo is not revolutionary in character. The oath that she took at the EDSA Shrine is the oath under the 1987
Constitution.64 In her oath, she categorically swore to preserve and defend the 1987 Constitution. Indeed, she has stressed that she
is discharging the powers of the presidency under the authority of the 1987 Constitution.

In fine, the legal distinction between EDSA People Power I EDSA People Power II is clear. EDSA I involves the exercise of
the people power of revolution which overthrew the whole government. EDSA II is an exercise of people power of freedom of
speech and freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances which only affected the office of the
President. EDSA I is extra constitutional and the legitimacy of the new government that resulted from it cannot be the subject of
judicial review, butEDSA II is 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. EDSA I presented a political question; EDSA II involves legal
questions. A brief discourse on freedom of speech and of the freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress of grievance
which are the cutting edge of EDSA People Power II is not inappropriate.

Freedom of speech and the right of assembly are treasured by Filipinos. Denial of these rights was one of the reasons of our 1898
revolution against Spain. Our national hero, Jose P. Rizal, raised the clarion call for the recognition of freedom of the press of the
Filipinos and included it as among "the reforms sine quibus non."65 The Malolos Constitution, which is the work of the revolutionary
Congress in 1898, provided in its Bill of Rights that Filipinos shall not be deprived (1) of the right to freely express his ideas or
opinions, orally or in writing, through the use of the press or other similar means; (2) of the right of association for purposes of human
life and which are not contrary to public means; and (3) of the right to send petitions to the authorities, individually or
collectively." These fundamental rights were preserved when the United States acquired jurisdiction over the Philippines. In
the Instruction to the Second Philippine Commission of April 7, 1900 issued by President McKinley, it is specifically provided "that
no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the rights of the people to peaceably assemble and petition
the Government for redress of grievances." The guaranty was carried over in the Philippine Bill, the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902
and the Jones Law, the Act of Congress of August 29, 1966.66

Thence on, the guaranty was set in stone in our 1935 Constitution,67 and the 197368 Constitution. These rights are now safely
ensconced in section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, viz:

"Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances."

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: first, freedom of expression is essential as a means of assuring individual fulfillment; second, it is an essential process for
advancing knowledge and discovering truth; third, it is essential to provide for participation in decision-making by all members of
society; and fourth, 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."69 In this sense, freedom of speech and of assembly provides a
framework in which the "conflict necessary to the progress of a society can take place without destroying the
society."70 In Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization,71 this function of free speech and assembly was echoed in
the amicus curiae filed by the Bill of Rights Committee of the American Bar Association which emphasized that "the basis of the right
of assembly is the substitution of the expression of opinion and belief by talk rather than force; and this means talk for all and by
all."72 In the relatively recent case of Subayco v. Sandiganbayan,73 this Court similar stressed that "… it should be clear even to those
with intellectual deficits that when the sovereign people assemble to petition for redress of grievances, all should listen. For in a
democracy, it is the people who count; those who are deaf to their grievances are ciphers."

Needless to state, 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, notably section 1 of Article II,74 and section 875 of Article VII, and the
allocation of governmental powers under section 1176 of Article 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. As early as the
1803 case of Marbury v. Madison,77 the doctrine has been laid down that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is . . ." Thus, respondent's in vocation of the doctrine of political question is but a foray in the dark.

II

Whether or not the petitioner

Resigned as President

We now slide to the second issue. None of the parties considered this issue as posing a political question. Indeed, it involves a legal
question whose factual ingredient is determinable from the records of the case and by resort to judicial notice. Petitioner denies he
resigned as President or that he suffers from a permanent disability. Hence, he submits that the office of the President was not vacant
when respondent Arroyo took her oath as President.

The issue brings under the microscope the meaning of section 8, Article VII of the Constitution which provides:

"Sec. 8. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office or resignation of the President, the Vice President shall
become the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation
of both the President and Vice President, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, shall then act as President until the President or Vice President shall have been elected and qualified.

x x x."
The issue then is whether the petitioner resigned as President or should be considered resigned as of January 20, 2001 when
respondent took her oath as the 14th President of the Public. Resignation is not a high level legal abstraction. It is a factual question and
its elementsare beyond quibble: there must be an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment.78 The
validity of a resignation is not government by any formal requirement as to form. It can be oral. It can be written. It can be express. It
can be implied. As long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect.

In the cases at bar, the facts show that petitioner did not write any formal letter of resignation before he evacuated Malacañang Palace
in the afternoon of January 20, 2001 after the oath-taking of respondent Arroyo. Consequently, whether or not petitioner resigned has
to be determined from his act and omissions before, during and after January 20, 2001 or by the totality of prior, contemporaneous
and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on the issue.

Using this totality test, we hold that petitioner resigned as President.

To appreciate the public pressure that led to the resignation of the petitioner, it is important to follow the succession of events after the
exposẻ of Governor Singson. The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee investigated. The more detailed revelations of petitioner's alleged
misgovernance in the Blue Ribbon investigation spiked the hate against him. The Articles of Impeachment filed in the House of
Representatives which initially was given a near cipher chance of succeeding snowballed. In express speed, it gained the signatures of
115 representatives or more than 1/3 of the House of Representatives. Soon, petitioner's powerful political allies began deserting him.
Respondent Arroyo quit as Secretary of Social Welfare. Senate President Drilon and former Speaker Villar defected with 47
representatives in tow. Then, his respected senior economic advisers resigned together with his Secretary of Trade and Industry.

As the political isolation of the petitioner worsened, the people's call for his resignation intensified. The call reached a new crescendo
when the eleven (11) members of the impeachment tribunal refused to open the second envelope. It sent the people to paroxysms of
outrage. Before the night of January 16 was over, the EDSA Shrine was swarming with people crying for redress of their grievance.
Their number grew exponentially. Rallies and demonstration quickly spread to the countryside like a brush fire.

As events approached January 20, we can have an authoritative window on the state of mind of the petitioner. The window is
provided in the "Final Days of Joseph Ejercito Estrada," the diary of Executive Secretary Angara serialized in the Philippine Daily
Inquirer.79 The Angara Diary reveals that in the morning of January 19, petitioner's loyal advisers were worried about the swelling of
the crowd at EDSA, hence, they decided to create an ad hoc committee to handle it. Their worry would worsen. At 1:20 p.m.,
petitioner pulled Secretary Angara into his small office at the presidential residence and exclaimed: "Ed, seryoso na ito. Kumalas na si
Angelo (Reyes) (Ed, this is serious. Angelo has defected.)"80 An hour later or at 2:30 p.m., the petitioner decided to call for a snap
presidential election and stressed he would not be a candidate. The proposal for a snap election for president in May where he
would not be a candidate is an indicium that petitioner had intended to give up the presidency even at that time. At 3:00 p.m.,
General Reyes joined the sea of EDSA demonstrators demanding the resignation of the petitioner and dramatically announced the
AFP's withdrawal of support from the petitioner and their pledge of support to respondent Arroyo. The seismic shift of support left
petitioner weak as a president. According to Secretary Angara, he asked Senator Pimentel to advise petitioner to consider the option
of "dignified exit or resignation."81 Petitioner did not disagree but listened intently.82 The sky was falling fast on the petitioner.
At 9:30 p.m., Senator Pimentel repeated to the petitioner the urgency of making a graceful and dignified exit. He gave the proposal a
sweetener by saying that petitioner would be allowed to go abroad with enough funds to support him and his family.83 Significantly,
the petitioner expressed no objection to the suggestion for a graceful and dignified exit but said he would never leave the
country.84 At 10:00 p.m., petitioner revealed to Secretary Angara, "Ed, Angie (Reyes) guaranteed that I would have five days to a
week in the palace."85 This is proof that petitioner had reconciled himself to the reality that he had to resign. His mind was
already concerned with the five-day grace period he could stay in the palace. It was a matter of time.

The pressure continued piling up. By 11:00 p.m., former President Ramos called up Secretary Angara and requested, "Ed,
magtulungan tayo para magkaroon tayo ng (let's cooperate to ensure a) peaceful and orderly transfer of power."86 There was no
defiance to the request. Secretary Angara readily agreed. Again, we note that at this stage, the problem was already about a
peaceful and orderly transfer of power. The resignation of the petitioner was implied.

The first negotiation for a peaceful and orderly transfer of power immediately started at 12:20 a.m. of January 20, that fateful
Saturday. The negotiation was limited to three (3) points: (1) the transition period of five days after the petitioner's resignation; (2)
the guarantee of the safety of the petitioner and his family, and (3) the agreement to open the second envelope to vindicate the name of
the petitioner.87Again, we note that the resignation of petitioner was not a disputed point. The petitioner cannot feign ignorance
of this fact.According to Secretary Angara, at 2:30 a.m., he briefed the petitioner on the three points and the following entry in
the Angara Diary shows the reaction of the petitioner, viz:

"x x x
 I explain what happened during the first round of negotiations. The President immediately stresses that he just wants the
five-day period promised by Reyes, as well as to open the second envelope to clear his name.

If the envelope is opened, on Monday, he says, he will leave by Monday.

The President says. "Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko na masyado nang masakit. Pagod na ako sa red tape,
bureaucracy, intriga. (I am very tired. I don't want any more of this – it's too painful. I'm tired of the red tape, the
bureaucracy, the intrigue.)

I just want to clear my name, then I will go."88

Again, this is high grade evidence that the petitioner has resigned. The intent to resign is clear when he said "x x x Ayoko
namasyado nang masakit." "Ayoko na" are words of resignation.

The second round of negotiation resumed at 7:30 a.m. According to the Angara Diary, the following happened:

"Opposition's deal

7:30 a.m. – Rene arrives with Bert Romulo and (Ms. Macapagal's spokesperson) Rene Corona. For this round, I am
accompanied by Dondon Bagatsing and Macel.

Rene pulls out a document titled "Negotiating Points." It reads:

'1. The President shall sign a resignation document within the day, 20 January 2001, that will be effective on Wednesday, 24
January 2001, on which day the Vice President will assume the Presidency of the Republic of the Philippines.

2. Beginning to day, 20 January 2001, the transition process for the assumption of the new administration shall commence,
and persons designated by the Vice President to various positions and offices of the government shall start their orientation
activities in coordination with the incumbent officials concerned.

3. The Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police shall function under the Vice President as national
military and police authority effective immediately.

4. The Armed Forced of the Philippines, through its Chief of Staff, shall guarantee the security of the President and his family
as approved by the national military and police authority (Vice President).

5. It is to be noted that the Senate will open the second envelope in connection with the alleged savings account of the
President in the Equitable PCI Bank in accordance with the rules of the Senate, pursuant to the request to the Senate
President.

Our deal

We bring out, too, our discussion draft which reads:

The undersigned parties, for and in behalf of their respective principals, agree and undertake as follows:

'1. A transition will occur and take place on Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at which time President Joseph Ejercito Estrada
will turn over the presidency to Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

'2. In return, President Estrada and his families are guaranteed security and safety of their person and property throughout
their natural lifetimes. Likewise, President Estrada and his families are guarantee freedom from persecution or retaliation
from government and the private sector throughout their natural lifetimes.

This commitment shall be guaranteed by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) through the Chief of Staff, as approved
by the national military and police authorities – Vice President (Macapagal).

'3. Both parties shall endeavor to ensure that the Senate sitting as an impeachment court will authorize the opening of the
second envelope in the impeachment trial as proof that the subject savings account does not belong to President Estrada.
 '4. During the five-day transition period between 20 January 2001 and 24 January 2001 (the 'Transition Period"), the
incoming Cabinet members shall receive an appropriate briefing from the outgoing Cabinet officials as part of the orientation
program.

During the Transition Period, the AFP and the Philippine National Police (PNP) shall function Vice President (Macapagal) as
national military and police authorities.

Both parties hereto agree that the AFP chief of staff and PNP director general shall obtain all the necessary signatures as
affixed to this agreement and insure faithful implementation and observance thereof.

Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo shall issue a public statement in the form and tenor provided for in "Annex A"
heretofore attached to this agreement."89

The second round of negotiation cements the reading that the petitioner has resigned. It will be noted that during this second round of
negotiation, the resignation of the petitioner was again treated as a given fact. The only unsettled points at that time were the measures
to be undertaken by the parties during and after the transition period.

According to Secretary Angara, the draft agreement, which was premised on the resignation of the petitioner was further refined. It
was then, signed by their side and he was ready to fax it to General Reyes and Senator Pimentel to await the signature of the United
Opposition. However, the signing by the party of the respondent Arroyo was aborted by her oath-taking. The Angara diary narrates the
fateful events,viz;90

"xxx

11:00 a.m. – Between General Reyes and myself, there is a firm agreement on the five points to effect a peaceful transition. I
can hear the general clearing all these points with a group he is with. I hear voices in the background.

Agreement.

The agreement starts: 1. The President shall resign today, 20 January 2001, which resignation shall be effective on 24 January
2001, on which day the Vice President will assume the presidency of the Republic of the Philippines.

xxx

The rest of the agreement follows:

2. The transition process for the assumption of the new administration shall commence on 20 January 2001, wherein persons
designated by the Vice President to various government positions shall start orientation activities with incumbent officials.

'3. The Armed Forces of the Philippines through its Chief of Staff, shall guarantee the safety and security of the President and
his families throughout their natural lifetimes as approved by the national military and police authority – Vice President.

'4. The AFP and the Philippine National Police (PNP) shall function under the Vice President as national military and police
authorities.

'5. Both parties request the impeachment court to open the second envelope in the impeachment trial, the contents of which
shall be offered as proof that the subject savings account does not belong to the President.

The Vice President shall issue a public statement in the form and tenor provided for in Annex "B" heretofore attached to this
agreement.

11:20 a.m. – I am all set to fax General Reyes and Nene Pimentel our agreement, signed by our side and awaiting the
signature of the United opposition.

And then it happens. General Reyes calls me to say that the Supreme Court has decided that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is
President and will be sworn in at 12 noon.

'Bakit hindi naman kayo nakahintay? Paano na ang agreement (why couldn't you wait? What about the agreement)?' I asked.
 Reyes answered: 'Wala na, sir (it's over, sir).'

I ask him: Di yung transition period, moot and academic na?'

And General Reyes answers: ' Oo nga, I delete na natin, sir (yes, we're deleting the part).'

Contrary to subsequent reports, I do not react and say that there was a double cross.

But I immediately instruct Macel to delete the first provision on resignation since this matter is already moot and academic.
Within moments, Macel erases the first provision and faxes the documents, which have been signed by myself, Dondon and
Macel, to Nene Pimentel and General Reyes.

I direct Demaree Ravel to rush the original document to General Reyes for the signatures of the other side, as it is important
that the provisions on security, at least, should be respected.

I then advise the President that the Supreme Court has ruled that Chief Justice Davide will administer the oath to Gloria at 12
noon.

The President is too stunned for words:

Final meal

12 noon – Gloria takes her oath as president of the Republic of the Philippines.

12:20 p.m. – The PSG distributes firearms to some people inside the compound.

The president is having his final meal at the presidential Residence with the few friends and Cabinet members who have
gathered.

By this time, demonstrators have already broken down the first line of defense at Mendiola. Only the PSG is there to protect
the Palace, since the police and military have already withdrawn their support for the President.

1 p.m. – The President's personal staff is rushing to pack as many of the Estrada family's personal possessions as they can.

During lunch, Ronnie Puno mentions that the president needs to release a final statement before leaving Malacañang.

The statement reads: At twelve o'clock noon today, Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took her oath as President of
the Republic of the Philippines. While along with many other legal minds of our country, I have strong and serious doubts
about the legality and constitutionality of her proclamation as President, I do not wish to be a factor that will prevent the
restoration of unity and order in our civil society.

It is for this reason that I now leave Malacañang Palace, the seat of the presidency of this country, for the sake of peace and
in order to begin the healing process of our nation. I leave the Palace of our people with gratitude for the opportunities given
to me for service to our people. I will not shirk from any future challenges that may come ahead in the same service of our
country.

I call on all my supporters and followers to join me in the promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and
solidarity.

May the Almighty bless our country and our beloved people.

MABUHAY!"'

It was curtain time for the petitioner.

In sum, we hold that the resignation of the petitioner cannot be doubted. It was confirmed by his leaving Malacañang. In the press
release containing his final statement, (1) he acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President of the Republic albeit with
reservation about its legality; (2) he emphasized he was leaving the Palace, the seat of the presidency, for the sake of peace and in
order to begin the healing process of our nation. He did not say he was leaving the Palace due to any kind inability and that he was
going to re-assume the presidency as soon as the disability disappears: (3) he expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity
to serve them. Without doubt, he was referring to the past opportunity given him to serve the people as President (4) he assured that he
will not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in the same service of our country. Petitioner's reference is to a future
challenge after occupying the office of the president which he has given up; and (5) he called on his supporters to join him in the
promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. Certainly, the national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity
could not be attained if he did not give up the presidency. The press release was petitioner's valedictory, his final act of farewell. His
presidency is now in the part tense.

It is, however, urged that the petitioner did not resign but only took a temporary leave dated January 20, 2001 of the petitioner sent to
Senate President Pimentel and Speaker Fuentebella is cited. Again, we refer to the said letter, viz:

"Sir.

By virtue of the provisions of Section II, Article VII of the Constitution, I am hereby transmitting this declaration that I am
unable to exercise the powers and duties of my office. By operation of law and the Constitution, the Vice President shall be
the Acting president.

(Sgd.) Joseph Ejercito Estrada"

To say the least, the above letter is wrapped in mystery.91 The pleadings filed by the petitioner in the cases at bar did not discuss, may
even intimate, the circumstances that led to its preparation. Neither did the counsel of the petitioner reveal to the Court these
circumstances during the oral argument. It strikes the Court as strange that the letter, despite its legal value, was never referred to by
the petitioner during the week-long crisis. To be sure, there was not the slightest hint of its existence when he issued his final press
release. It was all too easy for him to tell the Filipino people in his press release that he was temporarily unable to govern and that he
was leaving the reins of government to respondent Arroyo for the time bearing. Under any circumstance, however, the mysterious
letter cannot negate the resignation of the petitioner. If it was prepared before the press release of the petitioner clearly as a later act.
If, however, it was prepared after the press released, still, it commands scant legal significance. Petitioner's 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
reputation by the people. There is another reason why this Court cannot given any legal significance to petitioner's letter and this shall
be discussed in issue number III of this Decision.

After petitioner contended that as a matter of fact he did not resign, he also argues that he could not resign as a matter of law. He relies
on section 12 of RA No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which allegedly prohibits his
resignation, viz:

"Sec. 12. No public officer shall be allowed to resign or retire pending an investigation, criminals or administrative, or
pending a prosecution against him, for any offense under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on
bribery."

A reading of the legislative history of RA No. 3019 will hardly provide any comfort to the petitioner. RA No. 3019 originated form
Senate Bill No. 293. The original draft of the bill, when it was submitted to the Senate, did not contain a provision similar to section
12 of the law as it now stands. However, in his sponsorship speech, Senator Arturo Tolentino, the author of the bill, "reserved to
propose during the period of amendments the inclusion of a provision to the effect that no public official who is under prosecution for
any act of graft or corruption, or is under administrative investigation, shall be allowed to voluntarily resign or retire."92 During the
period of amendments, the following provision was inserted as section 15:

"Sec. 15. Termination of office – No public official shall be allowed to resign or retire pending an investigation, criminal or
administrative, or pending a prosecution against him, for any offense under the Act or under the provisions of the Revised
Penal Code on bribery.

The separation or cessation of a public official form office shall not be a bar to his prosecution under this Act for an offense
committed during his incumbency."93

The bill was vetoed by then President Carlos P. Garcia who questioned the legality of the second paragraph of the provision and
insisted that the President's immunity should extend after his tenure.
Senate Bill No. 571, which was substantially similar Senate Bill No. 293, was thereafter passed. Section 15 above became section 13
under the new bill, but the deliberations on this particular provision mainly focused on the immunity of the President, which was one
of the reasons for the veto of the original bill. There was hardly any debate on the prohibition against the resignation or retirement of a
public official with pending criminal and administrative cases against him. Be that as it may, the intent of the law ought to be obvious.
It is to prevent the act of resignation or retirement from being used by a public official as a protective shield to stop the investigation
of a pending criminal or administrative case against him and to prevent his prosecution under the Anti-Graft Law or prosecution for
bribery under the Revised Penal Code. To be sure, no person can be compelled to render service for that would be a violation of his
constitutional right.94 A public official has the right not to serve if he really wants to retire or resign. Nevertheless, if at the time he
resigns or retires, a public official is facing administrative or criminal investigation or prosecution, such resignation or retirement will
not cause the dismissal of the criminal or administrative proceedings against him. He cannot use his resignation or retirement to avoid
prosecution.

There is another reason why petitioner's contention should be rejected. In the cases at bar, the records show that when petitioner
resigned on January 20, 2001, the cases filed against him before the Ombudsman were OMB Case Nos. 0-00-1629, 0-00-1755, 0-00-
1756, 0-00-1757 and 0-00-1758. While these cases have been filed, the respondent Ombudsman refrained from conducting the
preliminary investigation of the petitioner for the reason that as the sitting President then, petitioner was immune from suit.
Technically, the said cases cannot be considered as pending for the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to act on them. Section 12 of RA
No. 3019 cannot therefore be invoked by the petitioner for it contemplates of cases whose investigation or prosecution do not suffer
from any insuperable legal obstacle like the immunity from suit of a sitting President.

Petitioner contends that the impeachment proceeding is an administrative investigation that, under section 12 of RA 3019, bars him
from resigning. We hold otherwise. The exact nature of an impeachment proceeding is debatable. But even assuming arguendo that it
is an administrative proceeding, it can not 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 petitioner when he resigned.

III

Whether or not the petitioner Is only temporarily unable to Act as President.

We shall now tackle the contention of the petitioner that he is merely temporarily unable to perform the powers and duties of the
presidency, and hence is a President on leave. As aforestated, the inability claim is contained in the January 20, 2001 letter of
petitioner sent on the same day to Senate President Pimentel and Speaker Fuentebella.

Petitioner postulates that respondent Arroyo as Vice President has no power to adjudge the inability of the petitioner to discharge the
powers and duties of the presidency. His significant submittal is that "Congress has the ultimate authority under the Constitution to
determine whether the President is incapable of performing his functions in the manner provided for in section 11 of article
VII."95 This contention is thecenterpiece of petitioner's stance that he is a President on leave and respondent Arroyo is only an
Acting President.

An examination of section 11, Article VII is in order. It provides:

"SEC. 11. Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives
his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a
written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President.

Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his
office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his
written declaration that no inability exists, he shall reassume the powers and duties of his office. Meanwhile, should a
majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his
office, the Congress shall decide the issue. For that purpose, the Congress shall convene, if it is not in session, within forty-
eight hours, in accordance with its rules and without need of call.

If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve days after it is
required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses, voting separately, that the President is unable to
 discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise, the President shall continue
exercising the powers and duties of his office."

That is the law. Now, the operative facts:

1. Petitioner, on January 20, 2001, sent the above letter claiming inability to the Senate President and Speaker of the
House;
2. Unaware of the letter, respondent Arroyo took her oath of office as President on January 20, 2001 at about 12:30
p.m.;
3. Despite receipt of the letter, the House of Representatives passed on January 24, 2001 House Resolution No. 175;96

On the same date, the House of the Representatives passed House Resolution No. 17697 which states:

"RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SUPPORT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE ASSUMPTION

INTO OFFICE BY VICE PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO AS PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, EXTENDING ITS CONGRATULATIONS AND EXPRESSING ITS SUPPORT FOR HER
ADMINISTRATION AS A PARTNER IN THE ATTAINMENT OF THE NATION'S GOALS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION

WHEREAS, as a consequence of the people's loss of confidence on the ability of former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada to
effectively govern, the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine National Police and majority of his cabinet had
withdrawn support from him;

WHEREAS, upon authority of an en banc resolution of the Supreme Court, Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was
sworn in as President of the Philippines on 20 January 2001 before Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.;

WHEREAS, immediately thereafter, members of the international community had extended their recognition to Her
Excellency, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Republic of the Philippines;

WHEREAS, Her Excellency, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has espoused a policy of national healing and
reconciliation with justice for the purpose of national unity and development;

WHEREAS, it is axiomatic that the obligations of the government cannot be achieved if it is divided, thus by reason of the
constitutional duty of the House of Representatives as an institution and that of the individual members thereof of fealty to
the supreme will of the people, the House of Representatives must ensure to the people a stable, continuing government and
therefore must remove all obstacles to the attainment thereof;

WHEREAS, it is a concomitant duty of the House of Representatives to exert all efforts to unify the nation, to eliminate
fractious tension, to heal social and political wounds, and to be an instrument of national reconciliation and solidarity as it is
a direct representative of the various segments of the whole nation;

WHEREAS, without surrending its independence, it is vital for the attainment of all the foregoing, for the House of
Representatives to extend its support and collaboration to the administration of Her Excellency, President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo, and to be a constructive partner in nation-building, the national interest demanding no less: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, To express its support to the assumption into office by Vice President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Republic of the Philippines, to extend its congratulations and to express its support for
her administration as a partner in the attainment of the Nation's goals under the Constitution.

Adopted,

(Sgd.) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR.

Speaker

This Resolution was adopted by the House of Representatives on January 24, 2001.

(Sgd.) ROBERTO P. NAZARENO

Secretary General"
On February 7, 2001, the House of the Representatives passed House Resolution No. 17898 which states:

"RESOLUTION CONFIRMING PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO'S NOMINATION OF SENATOR

TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. AS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

WHEREAS, there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice President due to the assumption to the Presidency of Vice President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9, Article VII of the Constitution, the President in the event of such vacancy shall nominate
a Vice President from among the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume office upon
confirmation by a majority vote of all members of both Houses voting separately;

WHEREAS, Her Excellency, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has nominated Senate Minority Leader Teofisto T.
Guingona Jr., to the position of Vice President of the Republic of the Philippines;

WHEREAS, Senator Teofisto T. Guingona Jr., is a public servant endowed with integrity, competence and courage; who has
served the Filipino people with dedicated responsibility and patriotism;

WHEREAS, Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. possesses sterling qualities of true statesmanship, having served the
government in various capacities, among others, as Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Chairman of the Commission
on Audit, Executive Secretary, Secretary of Justice, Senator of the Philippines – qualities which merit his nomination to the
position of Vice President of the Republic: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved as it is hereby resolved by the House of Representatives, That the House of Representatives confirms the
nomination of Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. as the Vice President of the Republic of the Philippines.

Adopted,

(Sgd.) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR.

Speaker

This Resolution was adopted by the House of Representatives on February 7, 2001.

(Sgd.) ROBERTO P. NAZARENO

Secretary General"

(4) Also, despite receipt of petitioner's letter claiming inability, some twelve (12) members of the Senate signed the
following:

"RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the recent transition in government offers the nation an opportunity for meaningful change and challenge;

WHEREAS, to attain desired changes and overcome awesome challenges the nation needs unity of purpose and resolve
cohesive resolute (sic) will;

WHEREAS, the Senate of the Philippines has been the forum for vital legislative measures in unity despite diversities in
perspectives;

WHEREFORE, we recognize and express support to the new government of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and resolve
to discharge and overcome the nation's challenges." 99

On February 7, the Senate also passed Senate Resolution No. 82100 which states:

"RESOLUTION CONFIRMING PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO'S NOMINATION OF SEM.

TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. AS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
WHEREAS, there is vacancy in the Office of the Vice President due to the assumption to the Presidency of Vice President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9 Article VII of the Constitution, the President in the event of such vacancy shall nominate a
Vice President from among the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume office upon
confirmation by a majority vote of all members of both Houses voting separately;

WHEREAS, Her Excellency, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has nominated Senate Minority Leader Teofisto T.
Guingona, Jr. to the position of Vice President of the Republic of the Philippines;

WHEREAS, Sen. Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. is a public servant endowed with integrity, competence and courage; who has
served the Filipino people with dedicated responsibility and patriotism;

WHEREAS, Sen. Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. possesses sterling qualities of true statemanship, having served the government in
various capacities, among others, as Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Chairman of the Commission on Audit,
Executive Secretary, Secretary of Justice, Senator of the land - which qualities merit his nomination to the position of Vice
President of the Republic: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, as it is hereby resolved, That the Senate confirm the nomination of Sen. Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. as Vice President
of the Republic of the Philippines.

Adopted,

(Sgd.) AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL JR.

President of the Senate

This Resolution was adopted by the Senate on February 7, 2001.

(Sgd.) LUTGARDO B. BARBO

Secretary of the Senate"

On the same date, February 7, the Senate likewise passed Senate Resolution No. 83101 which states:

"RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THAT THE IMPEACHMENT COURT IS FUNCTUS OFFICIO

Resolved, as it is hereby resolved. That the Senate recognize that the Impeachment Court is functus officio and has been
terminated.

Resolved, further, That the Journals of the Impeachment Court on Monday, January 15, Tuesday, January 16 and Wednesday,
January 17, 2001 be considered approved.

Resolved, further, That the records of the Impeachment Court including the "second envelope" be transferred to the Archives
of the Senate for proper safekeeping and preservation in accordance with the Rules of the Senate. Disposition and retrieval
thereof shall be made only upon written approval of the Senate president.

Resolved, finally. That all parties concerned be furnished copies of this Resolution.

Adopted,

(Sgd.) AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR.

President of the Senate

This Resolution was adopted by the Senate on February 7, 2001.

(Sgd.) LUTGARDO B. BARBO

Secretary of the Senate"
(5) On February 8, the Senate also passed Resolution No. 84 "certifying to the existence of vacancy in the Senate and calling on the
COMELEC to fill up such vacancy through election to be held simultaneously with the regular election on May 14, 2001 and the
Senatorial candidate garnering the thirteenth (13th) highest number of votes shall serve only for the unexpired term of Senator Teofisto
T. Guingona, Jr.'

(6) Both houses of Congress started sending bills to be signed into law by respondent Arroyo as President.

(7) Despite the lapse of time and still without any functioning Cabinet, without any recognition from any sector of government, and
without any support from the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police, the petitioner continues to claim
that his inability to govern is only momentary.

What leaps to the eye from these irrefutable facts is that both houses of Congress have recognized respondent Arroyo as the
President. Implicitly clear in that recognition is the premise that the inability of petitioner Estrada. Is no longer temporary.
Congress has clearly rejected petitioner's claim of inability.

The question is whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the claim of temporary inability of petitioner Estrada and
thereafterrevise the decision of both Houses of Congress recognizing respondent Arroyo as president of the Philippines.
Following Tañada v. Cuenco,102 we hold that this Court cannot exercise its judicial power or this is an issue "in regard to which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislative xxx branch of the government." Or to use the language in Baker vs.
Carr,103 there is a "textually demonstrable or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it." Clearly, the
Court cannot pass upon petitioner's claim of inability to discharge the power and duties of the presidency. The question is political in
nature and addressed solely to Congress by constitutional fiat. It is a political issue, which cannot be decided by this Court without
transgressing the principle of separation of powers.

In fine, even if the petitioner 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 respondent Arroyo is the de jure, president made by a co-equal branch of government cannot be reviewed by this Court.

IV

Whether or not the petitioner enjoys immunity from suit. Assuming he enjoys immunity, the extent of the immunity

Petitioner Estrada makes two submissions: first, the cases filed against him before the respondent Ombudsman should be prohibited
because he has not been convicted in the impeachment proceedings against him; and second, he enjoys immunity from all kinds of
suit, whether criminal or civil.

Before resolving petitioner's contentions, a revisit of our legal history executive immunity will be most enlightening. The doctrine of
executive immunity in this jurisdiction emerged as a case law. In the 1910 case of Forbes, etc. vs. Chuoco Tiaco and
Crosfield,104 the respondent Tiaco, a Chinese citizen, sued petitioner W. Cameron Forbes, Governor-General of the Philippine Islands.
J.E. Harding and C.R. Trowbridge, Chief of Police and Chief of the Secret Service of the City of Manila, respectively, for damages for
allegedly conspiring to deport him to China. In granting a writ of prohibition, this Court, speaking thru Mr. Justice Johnson, held:

" The principle of nonliability, as herein enunciated, does not mean that the judiciary has no authority to touch the acts of the
Governor-General; that he may, under cover of his office, do what he will, unimpeded and unrestrained. Such a construction
would mean that tyranny, under the guise of the execution of the law, could walk defiantly abroad, destroying rights of
person and of property, wholly free from interference of courts or legislatures. This does not mean, either that a person
injured by the executive authority by an act unjustifiable under the law has n remedy, but must submit in silence. On the
contrary, it means, simply, that the governors-general, like the judges if the courts and the members of the Legislature, may
not be personally mulcted in civil damages for the consequences of an act executed in the performance of his official duties.
The judiciary has full power to, and will, when the mater is properly presented to it and the occasion justly warrants it,
declare an act of the Governor-General illegal and void and place as nearly as possible in status quo any person who has been
deprived his liberty or his property by such act. This remedy is assured to every person, however humble or of whatever
country, when his personal or property rights have been invaded, even by the highest authority of the state. The thing which
the judiciary can not do is mulct the Governor-General personally in damages which result from the performance of his
official duty, any more than it can a member of the Philippine Commission of the Philippine Assembly. Public policy forbids
it.

Neither does this principle of nonliability mean that the chief executive may not be personally sued at all in relation to acts
which he claims to perform as such official. On the contrary, it clearly appears from the discussion heretofore had,
particularly that portion which touched the liability of judges and drew an analogy between such liability and that of the
 Governor-General, that the latter is liable when he acts in a case so plainly outside of his power and authority that he can not
be said to have exercised discretion in determining whether or not he had the right to act. What is held here is that he will be
protected from personal liability for damages not only when he acts within his authority, but also when he is without
authority, provided he actually used discretion and judgement, that is, the judicial faculty, in determining whether he had
authority to act or not. In other words, in determining the question of his authority. If he decide wrongly, he is still protected
provided the question of his authority was one over which two men, reasonably qualified for that position, might honestly
differ; but he s not protected if the lack of authority to act is so plain that two such men could not honestly differ over its
determination. In such case, be acts, not as Governor-General but as a private individual, and as such must answer for the
consequences of his act."

Mr. Justice Johnson underscored the consequences if the Chief Executive was not granted immunity from suit, viz "xxx. Action upon
important matters of state delayed; the time and substance of the chief executive spent in wrangling litigation; disrespect engendered
for the person of one of the highest officials of the state and for the office he occupies; a tendency to unrest and disorder resulting in a
way, in distrust as to the integrity of government itself."105

Our 1935 Constitution took effect but it did not contain any specific provision on executive immunity. Then came the tumult of the
martial law years under the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos and the 1973 Constitution was born. In 1981, it was amended and one
of the amendments involved executive immunity. Section 17, Article VII stated:

"The President shall be immune from suit during his tenure. Thereafter, no suit whatsoever shall lie for official acts done by
him or by others pursuant to his specific orders during his tenure.

The immunities herein provided shall apply to the incumbent President referred to in Article XVII of this Constitution.

In his second Vicente G. Sinco professional Chair lecture entitled, "Presidential Immunity and All The King's Men: The Law of
Privilege As a Defense To Actions For Damages,"106 petitioner's learned counsel, former Dean of the UP College of Law, Atty.
Pacificao Agabin, brightened the modifications effected by this constitutional amendment on the existing law on executive privilege.
To quote his disquisition:

"In the Philippines, though, we sought to do the Americans one better by enlarging and fortifying the absolute immunity
concept. First, we extended it to shield the President not only form civil claims but also from criminal cases and other claims.
Second, we enlarged its scope so that it would cover even acts of the President outside the scope of official duties. And third,
we broadened its coverage so as to include not only the President but also other persons, be they government officials or
private individuals, who acted upon orders of the President. It can be said that at that point most of us were suffering from
AIDS (or absolute immunity defense syndrome)."

The Opposition in the then Batasan Pambansa sought the repeal of this Marcosian concept of executive immunity in the 1973
Constitution. The move was led by them Member of Parliament, now Secretary of Finance, Alberto Romulo, who argued that the after
incumbency immunity granted to President Marcos violated the principle that a public office is a public trust. He denounced the
immunity as a return to the anachronism "the king can do no wrong."107 The effort failed.

The 1973 Constitution ceased to exist when President Marcos was ousted from office by the People Power revolution in 1986. When
the 1987 Constitution was crafted, its framers did not reenact the executive immunity provision of the 1973 Constitution. The
following explanation was given by delegate J. Bernas vis:108

"Mr. Suarez. Thank you.

The last question is with reference to the Committee's omitting in the draft proposal the immunity provision for the President.
I agree with Commissioner Nolledo that the Committee did very well in striking out second sentence, at the very least, of the
original provision on immunity from suit under the 1973 Constitution. But would the Committee members not agree to a
restoration of at least the first sentence that the President shall be immune from suit during his tenure, considering that if we
do not provide him that kind of an immunity, he might be spending all his time facing litigation's, as the President-in-exile in
Hawaii is now facing litigation's almost daily?

Fr. Bernas. The reason for the omission is that we consider it understood in present jurisprudence that during his tenure he is
immune from suit.

Mr. Suarez. So there is no need to express it here.

 Fr. Bernas. There is no need. It was that way before. The only innovation made by the 1973 Constitution was to make that
explicit and to add other things.

Mr. Suarez. On that understanding, I will not press for any more query, Madam President.

I think the Commissioner for the clarifications."

We shall now rule on the contentions of petitioner in the light of this history. We reject his argument that he cannot be prosecuted for
the reason that he must first be convicted in the impeachment proceedings. The impeachment trial of petitioner Estrada was aborted by
the walkout of the prosecutors and by the events that led to his loss of the presidency. Indeed, on February 7, 2001, the Senate passed
Senate Resolution No. 83 "Recognizing that the Impeachment Court is Functus Officio."109 Since, the Impeachment Court is now
functus officio, it is untenable for petitioner to demand that he should first be impeached and then convicted before he can be
prosecuted. The plea if granted, would put a perpetual bar against his prosecution. Such a submission has nothing to commend itself
for it will place him in a better situation than a non-sitting President who has not been subjected to impeachment proceedings and yet
can be the object of a criminal prosecution. To be sure, the debates in the Constitutional Commission make it clear that when
impeachment proceedings have become moot due to the resignation of the President, the proper criminal and civil cases may already
be filed against him, viz:110

"xxx

Mr. Aquino. On another point, if an impeachment proceeding has been filed against the President, for example, and the
President resigns before judgement of conviction has been rendered by the impeachment court or by the body, how does it
affect the impeachment proceeding? Will it be necessarily dropped?

Mr. Romulo. If we decide the purpose of impeachment to remove one from office, then his resignation would render the case
moot and academic. However, as the provision says, the criminal and civil aspects of it may continue in the ordinary courts."

This is in accord with our ruling In Re: Saturnino Bermudez111 that 'incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or from being brought
to court during the period of their incumbency and tenure" but not beyond. Considering the peculiar circumstance that the
impeachment process against the petitioner has been aborted and thereafter he lost the presidency, petitioner Estrada cannot demand as
a condition sine qua non to his criminal prosecution before the Ombudsman that he be convicted in the impeachment proceedings. His
reliance on the case of Lecaroz vs. Sandiganbayan112 and related cases113 are inapropos for they have a different factual milieu.

We now come to the scope of immunity that can be claimed by petitioner as a non-sitting President. The cases filed against petitioner
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.
Petitioner cannot cite any decision of this Court licensing the President to commit criminal acts and wrapping him with post-tenure
immunity from liability. It will be anomalous to hold that immunity is an inoculation from liability for unlawful acts and conditions.
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.114

Indeed, critical reading of current literature on executive immunity will reveal a judicial disinclination to expand the privilege
especially when it impedes the search for truth or impairs the vindication of a right. In the 1974 case of US v. Nixon,115 US President
Richard Nixon, a sitting President, was subpoenaed to produce certain recordings and documents relating to his conversations with
aids and advisers. Seven advisers of President Nixon's associates were facing charges of conspiracy to obstruct Justice and other
offenses, which were committed in a burglary of the Democratic National Headquarters in Washington's Watergate Hotel during the
972 presidential campaign. President Nixon himself was named an unindicted co-conspirator. President Nixon moved to quash the
subpoena on the ground, among others, that the President was not subject to judicial process and that he should first be impeached and
removed from office before he could be made amenable to judicial proceedings. The claim was rejected by the US Supreme Court. It
concluded that "when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on
the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair
administration of criminal justice." In the 1982 case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald,116 the US Supreme Court further held that the immunity of
the president from civil damages covers only "official acts." Recently, the US Supreme Court had the occasion to reiterate this
doctrine in the case of Clinton v. Jones117 where it held that the US President's immunity from suits for money damages arising out of
their official acts is inapplicable to unofficial conduct.

There are more reasons not to be sympathetic to appeals to stretch the scope of executive immunity in our jurisdiction. One of the
great themes of the 1987 Constitution is that a public office is a public trust.118 It declared as a state policy that "the State shall
maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruptio."119 it ordained
that "public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,
loyalty, and efficiency act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives."120 It set the rule that 'the right of the State to recover
properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, from them or from their nominees or transferees, shall not be barred
by prescription, latches or estoppel."121 It maintained the Sandiganbayan as an anti-graft court.122 It created the office of the
Ombudsman and endowed it with enormous powers, among which is to "investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any
act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust improper or
inefficient."123 The Office of the Ombudsman was also given fiscal autonomy.124 These constitutional policies will be devalued if we
sustain petitioner's claim that a non-sitting president enjoys immunity from suit for criminal acts committed during his incumbency.

Whether or not the prosecution of petitioner Estrada should be enjoined due to prejudicial publicity

Petitioner also contends that the respondent Ombudsman should be stopped from conducting the investigation of the cases filed
against him due to the barrage of prejudicial publicity on his guilt. He submits that the respondent Ombudsman has developed bias and
is all set file the criminal cases violation of his right to due process.

There are two (2) principal legal and philosophical schools of thought on how to deal with the rain of unrestrained publicity during the
investigation and trial of high profile cases.125 The British approach the problem with the presumption that publicity will prejudice a
jury. Thus, English courts readily stay and stop criminal trials when the right of an accused to fair trial suffers a threat.126 The
American approach is different. US courts assume a skeptical approach about the potential effect of pervasive publicity on the right of
an accused to a fair trial. They have developed different strains of tests to resolve this issue, i.e., substantial; probability of irreparable
harm, strong likelihood, clear and present danger, etc.

This is not the first time the issue of trial by publicity has been raised in this Court to stop the trials or annul convictions in high profile
criminal cases.127 In People vs. Teehankee, Jr.,128 later reiterated in the case of Larranaga vs. court of Appeals, et al.,129 we laid down
the doctrine that:

"We cannot sustain appellant's claim that he was denied the right to impartial trial due to prejudicial publicity. It is true that
the print and broadcast media gave the case at bar pervasive publicity, just like all high profile and high stake criminal trials.
Then and now, we rule that the right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press. To be sure, responsible
reporting enhances accused's right to a fair trial for, as well pointed out, a responsible press has always been regarded as the
criminal field xxx. The press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by
subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism.

Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. The mere fact that the trial of appellant was
given a day-to-day, gavel-to-gavel coverage does not by itself prove that the publicity so permeated the mind of the trial
judge and impaired his impartiality. For one, it is impossible to seal the minds of members of the bench from pre-trial and
other off-court publicity of sensational criminal cases. The state of the art of our communication system brings news as they
happen straight to our breakfast tables and right to our bedrooms. These news form part of our everyday menu of the facts
and fictions of life. For another, our idea of a fair and impartial judge is not that of a hermit who is out of touch with the
world. We have not installed the jury system whose members are overly protected from publicity lest they lose there
impartially. xxx xxx xxx. Our judges are learned in the law and trained to disregard off-court evidence and on-camera
performances of parties to litigation. Their mere exposure to publications and publicity stunts does not per se fatally infect
their impartiality.

At best, appellant can only conjure possibility of prejudice on the part of the trial judge due to the barrage of publicity that
characterized the investigation and trial of the case. In Martelino, et al. v. Alejandro, et al., we rejected this standard of
possibility of prejudice and adopted the test of actual prejudice as we ruled that to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity,
there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be, by the barrage
of publicity. In the case at a bar, the records do not show that the trial judge developed actual bias against appellants as a
consequence of the extensive media coverage of the pre-trial and trial of his case. The totality of circumstances of the case
does not prove that the trial judge acquired a fixed opinion as a result of prejudicial publicity, which is incapable of change
even by evidence presented during the trial. Appellant has the burden to prove this actual bias and he has not discharged the
burden.'

We expounded further on this doctrine in the subsequent case of Webb vs. Hon. Raul de Leon, etc.130 and its companion cases, viz:

"Again petitioners raise the effect of prejudicial publicity on their right to due process while undergoing preliminary
investigation. We find no procedural impediment to its early invocation considering the substantial risk to their liberty while
undergoing a preliminary investigation.
 xxx

The democratic settings, media coverage of trials of sensational cases cannot be avoided and oftentimes, its excessiveness has
been aggravated by kinetic developments in the telecommunications industry. For sure, few cases can match the high volume
and high velocity of publicity that attended the preliminary investigation of the case at bar. Our daily diet of facts and fiction
about the case continues unabated even today. Commentators still bombard the public with views not too many of which are
sober and sublime. Indeed, even the principal actors in the case – the NBI, the respondents, their lawyers and their
sympathizers have participated in this media blitz. The possibility of media abuses and their threat to a fair trial
notwithstanding, criminal trials cannot be completely closed to the press and public. In the seminal case of Richmond
Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, it was

xxx

a. The historical evidence of the evolution of the criminal trial in Anglo-American justice demonstrates
conclusively that at the time this Nation's organic laws were adopted, criminal trials both here and in England had
long been presumptively open, thus giving assurance that the proceedings were conducted fairly to all concerned and
discouraging perjury, the misconduct of participants, or decisions based on secret bias or partiality. In addition, the
significant community therapeutic value of public trials was recognized when a shocking crime occurs a community
reaction of outrage and public protest often follows, and thereafter the open processes of justice serve an important
prophylactic purpose, providing an outlet for community concern, hostility and emotion. To work effectively, it is
important that society's criminal process satisfy the appearance of justice,' Offutt v. United States, 348 US 11, 14, 99
L ED 11, 75 S Ct 11, which can best be provided by allowing people to observe such process. From this unbroken,
uncontradicted history, supported by reasons as valid today as in centuries past, it must be concluded that a
presumption of openness inheres in the very nature of a criminal trial under this Nation's system of justice, Cf., e,g.,
Levine v. United States, 362 US 610, 4 L Ed 2d 989, 80 S Ct 1038.
b. The freedoms of speech. Press and assembly, expressly guaranteed by the First Amendment, share a
common core purpose of assuring freedom of communication on matters relating to the functioning of government.
In guaranteeing freedom such as those of speech and press, the First Amendment can be read as protecting the right
of everyone to attend trials so as give meaning to those explicit guarantees; the First Amendment right to receive
information and ideas means, in the context of trials, that the guarantees of speech and press, standing alone,
prohibit government from summarily closing courtroom doors which had long been open to the public at the time
the First Amendment was adopted. Moreover, the right of assembly is also relevant, having been regarded not only
as an independent right but also as a catalyst to augment the free exercise of the other First Amendment rights with
which the draftsmen deliberately linked it. A trial courtroom is a public place where the people generally and
representatives of the media have a right to be present, and where their presence historically has been thought to
enhance the integrity and quality of what takes place.
c. Even though the Constitution contains no provision which be its terms guarantees to the public the right to
attend criminal trials, various fundamental rights, not expressly guaranteed, have been recognized as indispensable
to the enjoyment of enumerated rights. The right to attend criminal trial is implicit in the guarantees of the First
Amendment: without the freedom to attend such trials, which people have exercised for centuries, important aspects
of freedom of speech and of the press be eviscerated.

Be that as it may, we recognize that pervasive and prejudicial publicity under certain circumstances can deprive an accused of
his due process right to fair trial. Thus, in Martelino, et al. vs. Alejandro, et al., we held that to warrant a finding of
prejudicial publicity there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they
might be, by the barrage of publicity. In the case at bar, we find nothing in the records that will prove that the tone and
content of the publicity that attended the investigation of petitioners fatally infected the fairness and impartiality of the DOJ
Panel. Petitioners cannot just rely on the subliminal effects of publicity on the sense of fairness of the DOJ Panel, for these
are basically unbeknown and beyond knowing. To be sure, the DOJ Panel is composed of an Assistant Chief State Prosecutor
and Senior State Prosecutors. Their long experience in criminal investigation is a factor to consider in determining whether
they can easily be blinded by the klieg lights of publicity. Indeed, their 26-page Resolution carries no indubitable indicia of
bias for it does not appear that they considered any extra-record evidence except evidence properly adduced by the parties.
The length of time the investigation was conducted despite its summary nature and the generosity with which they
accommodated the discovery motions of petitioners speak well of their fairness. At no instance, we note, did petitioners seek
the disqualification of any member of the DOJ Panel on the ground of bias resulting from their bombardment of prejudicial
publicity." (emphasis supplied)

Applying the above ruling, we hold that there is not enough evidence to warrant this Court to enjoin the preliminary
investigation of the petitioner by the respondent Ombudsman. Petitioner needs to offer more than hostile headlines to discharge
his burden of proof.131 He needs to show more weighty social science evidence to successfully prove the impaired capacity of a judge
to render a bias-free decision. Well to note, the cases against the petitioner are still undergoing preliminary investigation by a special
panel of prosecutors in the office of the respondent Ombudsman. No allegation whatsoever has been made by the petitioner that the
minds of the members of this special panel have already been infected by bias because of the pervasive prejudicial publicity against
him. Indeed, the special panel has yet to come out with its findings and the Court cannot second guess whether its recommendation
will be unfavorable to the petitioner.1âwphi1.nêt

The records show that petitioner has instead charged respondent Ombudsman himself with bias. To quote petitioner's submission, the
respondent Ombudsman "has been influenced by the barrage of slanted news reports, and he has buckled to the threats and pressures
directed at him by the mobs."132 News reports have also been quoted to establish that the respondent Ombudsman has already
prejudged the cases of the petitioner133 and it is postulated that the prosecutors investigating the petitioner will be influenced by this
bias of their superior.

Again, we hold that the evidence proffered by the petitioner is insubstantial. The accuracy of the news reports referred to by the
petitioner cannot be the subject of judicial notice by this Court especially in light of the denials of the respondent Ombudsman as to
his alleged prejudice and the presumption of good faith and regularity in the performance of official duty to which he is entitled. Nor
can we adopt the theory of derivative prejudice of petitioner, i.e., that the prejudice of respondent Ombudsman flows to his
subordinates. In truth, our Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, give investigation prosecutors the independence to make their own
findings and recommendations albeit they are reviewable by their superiors.134 They can be reversed but they can not be compelled
cases which they believe deserve dismissal. In other words, investigating prosecutors should not be treated like unthinking slot
machines. Moreover, if the respondent Ombudsman resolves to file the cases against the petitioner and the latter believes that the
findings of probable cause against him is the result of bias, he still has the remedy of assailing it before the proper court.

VI.

Epilogue

A word of caution to the "hooting throng." The cases against the petitioner will now acquire a different dimension and then move to a
new stage - - - the Office of the Ombudsman. Predictably, the call from the majority for instant justice will hit a higher decibel while
the gnashing of teeth of the minority will be more threatening. It is the sacred duty of the respondent Ombudsman to balance the right
of the State to prosecute the guilty and the right of an accused to a fair investigation and trial which has been categorized as the "most
fundamental of all freedoms."135 To be sure, the duty of a prosecutor is more to do justice and less to prosecute. His is the obligation to
insure that the preliminary investigation of the petitioner shall have a circus-free atmosphere. He has to provide the restraint against
what Lord Bryce calls "the impatient vehemence of the majority." Rights in a democracy are not decided by the mob whose judgment
is dictated by rage and not by reason. Nor are rights necessarily resolved by the power of number for in a democracy, the dogmatism
of the majority is not and should never be the definition of the rule of law. If democracy has proved to be the best form of government,
it is because it has respected the right of the minority to convince the majority that it is wrong. Tolerance of multiformity of thoughts,
however offensive they may be, is the key to man's progress from the cave to civilization. Let us not throw away that key just to
pander to some people's prejudice.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petitions of Joseph Ejercito Estrada challenging the respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as the de
jure 14thPresident of the Republic are DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

[G.R. Nos. 146710-15. April 3, 2001]

JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, petitioner, vs. ANIANO DESIERTO, in his capacity as Ombudsman, RAMON GONZALES,
VOLUNTEERS AGAINST CRIME AND CORRUPTION, GRAFT FREE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION, INC.,
LEONARD DE VERA, DENNIS FUNA, ROMEO CAPULONG and ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR.,respondents.
[G.R. No. 146738. April 3, 2001]
JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, petitioner, vs. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, respondent.
RESOLUTION
PUNO, J.:
For resolution are petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in G.R. Nos. 146710-15 and Omnibus Motion in G.R. No. 146738 of
the Court’s Decision of March 2, 2001.
In G.R. Nos. 146710-15, petitioner raises the following grounds:
“I. IT DISREGARDED THE CLEAR AND EXPLICIT PROVISIONS OF ART. XI, SECTION 3 (7) OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE THEREON.
II. IT HELD THAT PETITIONER CAN BE PROSECUTED NOW, FOR THIS RULING WOULD VIOLATE THE
DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, CONSIDERING THAT PETITIONER WAS
ACQUITTED IN THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.
III. IT HELD THAT PETITIONER IS NO LONGER ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT.
IV. IT HELD THAT PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL HAVE NOT BEEN PREJUDICED
BY PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY.
V. IT HELD THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO WARRANT THE COURT TO ENJOIN THE
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF THE INCUMBENT OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER HAVING FAILED TO
PROVE THE IMPAIRED CAPACITY OF THE OMBUDSMAN TO RENDER A BIASED FREE DECISION.”
In G.R. No. 146738, petitioner raises and argues the following issues:
1. WHETHER PETITIONER RESIGNED OR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED RESIGNED AS OF JANUARY 20, 2001;
2. WHETHER THE ANGARA DIARY IS INADMISSIBLE FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF THE FOLLOWING RULES
ON EVIDENCE: HEARSAY, BEST EVIDENCE, AUTHENTICATION, ADMISSIONS AND RES INTER ALIOS
ACTA;
3. WHETHER RELIANCE ON NEWSPAPER ACOUNTS IS VIOLATIVE OF THE HEARSAY RULE;
4. WHETHER CONGRESS POST FACTO CAN DECIDE PETITIONER’S INABILITY TO GOVERN CONSIDERING
SECTION 11, ARTICLE VII OF THE CONSTITUTION; and
5. WHETHER PREJUDICIAL PUBLICITY HAS AFFECTED PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL.
We find the contentions of petitioner bereft of merit.
I
Prejudicial Publicity on the Court

Petitioner insists he is the victim of prejudicial publicity. Among others, he assails the Decision for adverting to newspaper
accounts of the events and occurrences to reach the conclusion that he has resigned. In our Decision, we used the totality test to arrive
at the conclusion that petitioner has resigned. We referred to and analyzed events that were prior, contemporaneous and posterior to
the oath-taking of respondent Arroyo as president. All these events are facts which are well-established and cannot be
refuted. Thus, we adverted to prior events that built up the irresistible pressure for the petitioner to resign. These are: (1) the expose
of Governor Luis “Chavit” Singson on October 4, 2000; (2) the “I accuse” speech of then Senator Teofisto Guingona in the Senate; (3)
the joint investigation of the speech of Senator Guingona by the Blue Ribbon Committee and the Committee on Justice; (4) the
investigation of the Singson expose by the House Committee on Public Order and Security; (5) the move to impeach the petitioner in
the House of Representatives; (6) the Pastoral Letter of Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin demanding petitioner’s resignation; (7) a
similar demand by the Catholic Bishops conference; (8) the similar demands for petitioner’s resignation by former Presidents Corazon
C. Aquino and Fidel V. Ramos; (9) the resignation of respondent Arroyo as Secretary of the DSWD and her call for petitioner to
resign; (10) the resignation of the members of petitioner’s Council of Senior Economic Advisers and of Secretary Mar Roxas III from
the Department of Trade and Industry; (11) the defection of then Senate President Franklin Drilon and then Speaker of the House of
Representatives Manuel Villar and forty seven (47) representatives from petitioner’s Lapiang Masang Pilipino; (12) the transmission
of the Articles of Impeachment by Speaker Villar to the Senate; (13) the unseating of Senator Drilon as Senate President and of
Representative Villar as Speaker of the House; (14) the impeachment trial of the petitioner; (15) the testimonies of Clarissa Ocampo
and former Finance Secretary Edgardo Espiritu in the impeachment trial; (16) the 11-10 vote of the senator-judges denying the
prosecutor’s motion to open the 2nd envelope which allegedly contained evidence showing that petitioner held a P3.3 billion deposit
in a secret bank account under the name of “Jose Velarde”; (17) the prosecutors’ walkout and resignation; (18) the indefinite
postponement of the impeachment proceedings to give a chance to the House of Representatives to resolve the issue of resignation of
their prosecutors; (19) the rally in the EDSA Shrine and its intensification in various parts of the country; (20) the withdrawal of
support of then Secretary of National Defense Orlando Mercado and the then Chief of Staff, General Angelo Reyes, together with the
chiefs of all the armed services; (21) the same withdrawal of support made by the then Director General of the PNP, General Panfilo
Lacson, and the major service commanders; (22) the stream of resignations by Cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant
secretaries and bureau chiefs; (23) petitioner’s agreement to hold a snap election and opening of the controversial second
envelope. All these prior events are facts which are within judicial notice by this Court. There was no need to cite their news
accounts. The reference by the Court to certain newspapers reporting them as they happened does not make them
inadmissible evidence for being hearsay. The news account only buttressed these facts as facts. For all his loud protestations,
petitioner has not singled out any of these facts as false.
We now come to some events of January 20, 2001 contemporaneous to the oath taking of respondent Arroyo. We used the
Angara Diary to decipher the intent to resign on the part of the petitioner. Let it be emphasized that it is not unusual for courts to
distill a person’s subjective intent from the evidence before them. Everyday, courts ascertain intent in criminal cases, in civil law cases
involving last wills and testaments, in commercial cases involving contracts and in other similar cases. As will be discussed below,
the use of the Angara Diary is not prohibited by the hearsay rule. Petitioner may disagree with some of the inferences arrived at by the
Court from the facts narrated in the Diary but that does not make the Diary inadmissible as evidence.
We did not stop with the contemporaneous events but proceeded to examine some events posterior to the oath-taking of
respondent Arroyo. Specifically, we analyzed the all important press release of the petitioner containing his final statement which
was issued after the oath-taking of respondent Arroyo as president. After analyzing its content, we ruled that petitioner’s issuance of
the press release and his abandonemnt of Malacañang Palace confirmed his resignation.[1] These areovert acts which leave no doubt to
the Court that the petitioner has resigned.
In light of this finding that petitioner has resigned before 12 o’clock noon of Janaury 20, 2001, the claim that the office of
the President was not vacant when respondent Arroyo took her oath of office at half past noon of the same day has no leg to
stand on.
We also reject the contention that petitioner’s resignation was due to duress and an involuntary resignation is no resignation at
all.

“x x x [I]t has been said that, in determining whether a given resignation is voluntarily tendered, the element of voluntariness is
vitiated only when the resignation is submitted under duress brought on by government action. The three-part test for such duress
has been stated as involving the following elements: (1) whether one side involuntarily accepted the other’s terms; (2) whether
circumstances permitted no other alternative; and (3) whether such circumstances were the result of coercive acts of the opposite
side. The view has also been expressed that a resignation may be found involuntary if on the totality of the circumstances it appears
that the employer’s conduct in requesting resignation effectively deprived the employer of free choice in the matter. Factors to be
considered, under this test, are: (1) whether the employee was given some alternative to resignation; (2) whether the employee
understood the nature of the choice he or she was given; (3) whether the employewe was given a reasonable time in which to choose;
and (4) whether he or she was permitted to select the effective date of resignation. In applying this totality of the circumstances test,
the assessment whether real alternatives were offered must be gauged by an objective standard rather than by the employee’s purely
subjective evaluation; that the employee may perceive his or her only option to be resignation – for example, because of
concerns about his or her reputation – is irrelevant. Similarly, the mere fact that the choice is between comparably unpleasant
alternatives – for example, resignation or facing disciplinary charges – does not of itself establish that a resignation was
induced by duress or coercion, and was therefore involuntary. This is so even where the only alternative to resignation is facing
possible termination for cause, unless the employer actually lacked good cause to believe that grounds for termination existed. In this
regard it has also been said that a resignation resulting from a choice between resigning or facing proceedings for dismissal is not
tantamount to discharge by coercion without procedural view if the employee is given sufficient time and opportunity for deliberation
of the choice posed. Futhermore, a resignation by an officer charged with misconduct is not given under duress, though the
appropriate authority has already determined that the officer’s alternative is termination, where such authority has the legal authority
to terminate the officer’s employment under the particular circumstances, since it is not duress to threaten to do what one has the legal
right to do, or to threaten to take any measure authorized by law and the circumstances of the case.”[2]

In the cases at bar, petitioner had several options available to him other than resignation. He proposed to the holding of snap
elections. He transmitted to the Congress a written declaration of temporary inability. He could not claim he was forced to resign
because immediately before he left Malacañang, he asked Secretary Angara: “Ed, aalis na ba ako?” which implies that he still had a
choice of whether or not to leave.
To be sure, pressure was exerted for the petitioner to resign. But it is difficult to believe that the pressure completely
vitiated the voluntariness of the petitioner’s resignation. The Malacañang ground was then fully protected by the Presidential
Security Guard armed with tanks and high-powered weapons. The then Chief of Staff, General Angelo Reyes, and other military
officers were in Malacañang to assure that no harm would befall the petitioner as he left the Palace. Indeed, no harm, not even a
scratch, was suffered by the petitioner, the members of his family and his Cabinet who stuck it out with him in his last
hours. Petitioner’s entourage was even able to detour safely to the Municipal Hall of San Juan and bade goodbye to his followers
before finally going to his residence in Polk Street, Greenhills. The only incident before the petitioner left the Palace was the stone
throwing between a small group of pro and anti Erap rallyists which resulted in minor injuries to a few of them. Certainly, there were
no tanks that rumbled through the Palace, no attack planes that flew over the presidential residence, no shooting, no large scale
violence, except verbal violence, to justify the conclusion that petitioner was coerced to resign.
 II
Evidentiary Issues

Petitioner devotes a large part of his arguments on the alleged improper use by this Court of the Angara Diary. It is urged that
the use of the Angara Diary to determine the state of mind of the petitioner on the issue of his resignation violates the rule against the
admission of hearsay evidence.
We are unpersuaded. To begin with, the Angara diary is not an out of court statement. The Angara Diary is part of the
pleadings in the cases at bar. Petitioner cannot complain he was not furnished a copy of the Angara Diary. Nor can he feign
surprise on its use. To be sure, the said Diary was frequently referred to by the parties in their pleadings. [3] The three parts of the Diary
published in the PDI from February 4-6, 2001 were attached as Annexes A-C, respectively, of the Memorandum of private
respondents Romeo T. Capulong, et al., dated February 20, 2001. The second and third parts of the Diary were earlier also attached as
Annexes 12 and 13 of the Comment of private respondents Capulong, et al., dated February 12, 2001. In fact, petitioner even cited in
his Second Supplemental Reply Memorandum both the second part of the diary, published on February 5, 2001, [4] and the third part,
published on February 6, 2001.[5] It was also extensively used by Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez in his oral arguments. Thus,
petitioner had all the opportunity to contest the use of the Diary but unfortunately failed to do so.
Even assuming arguendo that the Angara Diary was an out of court statement, still its use is not covered bythe hearsay rule.
[6]
Evidence is called hearsay when its probative force depends, in whole or in part, on the competency and credibility of some persons
other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce it. [7]There are three reasons for excluding hearsay evidence: (1) absence of
cross examination; (2) absence of demeanor evidence, and (3) absence of the oath.[8] Not at all hearsay evidence, however, is
inadmissible as evidence. Over the years, a huge body of hearsay evidence has been admitted by courts due to their relevance,
trustworthiness and necessity.[9] The emergence of these exceptions and their wide spread acceptance is well-explained by Weinstein,
Mansfield, Abrams and Berger as follows:

“x x x

On the other hand, we all make decisions in our everyday lives on the basis of other persons’ accounts of what happened, and verdicts
are usually sustained and affirmed even if they are based on hearsay erroneously admitted, or admitted because no objection was
made. See Shepp v. Uehlinger, 775 F 2d 452, 454-455 (1st Cir. 1985) (hearsay evidence alone can support a verdict). Although
volumes have been written suggesting ways to revise the hearsay rule, no one advocates a rule that would bar all hearsay
evidence. Indeed, the decided historical trend has been to exclude categories of highly probative statements from the definition
of hearsay (sections 2 and 3, infra), and to develop more class exceptions to the hearsay rule (sections 4-11,
infra). Furthermore, many states have added to their rules the residual, or catch-all, exceptions first pioneered by the Federal
Rules which authorize the admission of hearsay that does not satisfy a class exception, provided it is adequately trustworthy
and probative (section 12, infra).

Moreover, some commentators believe that the hearsay rule should be abolished altogether instead of being loosened. See, e.g.,
Note, The Theoretical Foundation of the Hearsay Rules, 93 Harv.L.Rev. 1786, 1804-1805, 1815 (1980) (footnotes omitted):

The Federal Rules of Evidence provide that ‘[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.’ Under this structure, exclusion is justified by fears of how the jury will be influenced
by the evidence. However, it is not traditional to think of hearsay as merely a subdivision of this structure, and the Federal Rules do
not conceive of hearsay in that manner. Prejudice refers to the jury’s use of evidence for inferences other than those for which the
evidence is legally relevant; by contrast, the rule against hearsay questions the jury’s ability to evaluate the strength of
a legitimateinference to be drawn from the evidence. For example, were a judge to exclude testimony because a witness was
particularly smooth or convincing, there would be no doubt as to the usurpation of the jury’s function. Thus, unlike prejudices
recognized by the evidence rules, such as those stemming from racial or religious biases or from the introduction of photographs of a
victim’s final state, the exclusion of hearsay on the basis of misperception strikes at the root of the jury’s function by usurping its
power to process quite ordinary evidence, the type of information routinely encountered by jurors in their everyday lives.

Since virtually all criteria seeking to distinguish between good and bad hearsay are either incoherent, inconsistent, or indeterminate,
the only altenative to a general rule of admission would be an absolute rule of exclusion, which is surely inferior. More important, the
assumptions necessary to justify a rule against hearsay … seem insupportable and, in any event, are inconsistent with accepted notions
of the function of the jury. Therefore, the hearsay rules should be abolished.

Some support for this view can be found in the limited empirical research now available – which is, however, derived from
simulations – that suggests that admitting hearsay has little effect on trial outcomes because jurors discount the value of hearsay
evidence. See Rakos & Landsman, Researching the Hearsay Rule: Emerging Findings, General Issues, and Future Directions, 76
Minn.L.Rev. 655 (1992); Miene, Park, & Borgidas, Jury Decision Making and the Evaluation of Hearsay Evidence, 76 Minn.L.Rev.
683 (1992); Kovera, Park, & Penrod, Jurors’ Perceptions of Eyewitness and Hearsay Evidence, 76 Minn.L.Rev. 703 (1992);
Landsman & Rakos, Research Essay: A Preliminary Empirical Enquiry Concerning the prohibition of Hearsay Evidence in American
Courts, 15 Law & Psychol. Rev. 65 (1991).

Others, even if they concede that restrictions on hearsay have some utility, question whether the benefits outweigh the
cost:

The cost of maintaining the rule is not just a function of its contribution to justice. It also includes the time spent on litigating the
rule. And of course this is not just a cost voluntarily borne by the parties, for in our system virtually all the cost of the court – salaries,
administrative costs, and capital costs – are borne by the public. As expensive as litigation is for the parties, it is supported by an
enormous public subsidy. Each time a hearsay question is litigated, the public pays. The rule imposes other costs as
well. Enormous time is spent teaching and writing about the hearsay rule, which are both costly enterprises. In some law schools,
students spend over half their time in evidence classes learning the intricacies of the hearsay rule, and … enormous academic
resources are expended on the rule.

Allen, Commentary on Professor Friendman’s Article: The Evolution of the Hearsay Rule to a Rule of Admission, 76 Minn.L.Rev.
797, 800 [1992] (but would abolish rule only in civil cases). See also Friedman, Toward a Partial Economic, Game-Theoretic
Analysis of Hearsay, 76 Minn. L. Rev. 723 (1992).”[10]

A complete analysis of any hearsay problem requires that we further determine whether the hearsay evidence is one exempted
from the rules of exclusion. A more circumspect examination of our rules of exclusion will show that they do not cover
admissions of a party and the Angara Diary belongs to this class. Section 26 of Rule 130 provides that “the act, declaration or
omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.” [11] It has long been settled that these admissions are
admissible even if they are hearsay. Retired Justice Oscar Herrera of the Court of Appeals cites the various authorities who explain
why admissions are not covered by the hearsay rule:[12]

“Wigmore, after pointing out that the party’s declaration has generally the probative value of any other person’s asssertion, argued
that it had a special value when offered against the party. In that circumstance, the admission discredits the party’s statement with
the present claim asserted in pleadings and testimony, much like a witness impeached by contradictory statements. Moreover, he
continued, admissions pass the gauntlet of the hearsay rule, which requires that extrajudicial assertions be excluded if there was no
opportunity for the opponent to cross-examine because it is the opponent’s own declaration, and ‘he does not need to cross examine
himself.’ Wigmore then added that the Hearsay Rule is satisfied since the party now as opponent has the full opportunity to put
himself on the stand and explain his former assertion. (Wigmore on evidence, Sec. 1048 (Chadbourn Rev. 1972), cited in Sec. 154,
McCormick)

According to Morgan: ‘The admissibility of an admission made by the party himself rests not upon any notion that the circumstances
in which it was made furnish the trier means of evaluating it fairly, but upon the adversary theory of litigation. A party can hardly
object that he had no opportunity to cross-examine himself or that he is unworthy of credence save when speaking under
sanction of an oath.’

A man’s acts, conduct, and declaration, wherever made, if voluntary, are admissible against him, for the reason that it is fair to
presume that they correspond with the truth, and it is his fault if they do not. (U.S. vs. Ching Po, 23 Phil. 578, 583).”

The Angara Diary contains direct statements of petitioner which can be categorized as admissions of a party: his proposal for a snap
presidential election where he would not be a candidate; his statement that he only wanted the five-day period promised by Chief of
Staff Angelo Reyes; his statements that he would leave by Monday if the second envelope would be opened by Monday and “Pagod
na pagod na ako. Ayoko na, masyado nang masakit. Pagod na ako sa red tape, bureaucracy, intriga. (I am very tired. I don’t want
any more of this – it’s too painful. I’m tired of the red tape, the bureaucracy, the intrigue). I just want to clear my name, then I will
go.” We noted that days before, petitioner had repeatedly declared that he would not resign despite the growing clamor for his
resignation. The reason for the meltdown is obvious - - - his will not to resign has wilted.
It is, however, argued that the Angara Diary is not the diary of the petitioner, hence, non-binding on him. The
argument overlooks the doctrine ofadoptive admission. An adoptive admission is a party’s reaction to a statement or action by
another person when it is reasonable to treat the party’s reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other
person.[13] Jones explains that the “basis for admissibility of admissions made vicariously is that arising from the ratification or
adoption by the party of the statements which the other person had made.” [14] To use the blunt language of Mueller and Kirkpatrick,
“this process of attribution is not mumbo jumbo but common sense.”[15] In the Angara Diary, the options of the petitioner started
to dwindle when the armed forces withdrew its support from him as President and commander-in-chief. Thus, Executive Secretary
Angara had to ask Senate President Pimentel to advise petitioner to consider the option of “dignified exit or resignation.” Petitioner
did not object to the suggested option but simply said he could never leave the country. Petitioner’s silence on this and other related
suggestions can be taken as an admission by him.[16]
Petitioner further contends that the use of the Angara diary against him violated the rule on res inter alios acta. The rule is
expressed in section 28 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, viz: “The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.”
Again, petitioner errs in his contention. The res inter alios acta rule has several exceptions. One of them is provided in section
29 of Rule 130 with respect to admissions by a co-partner or agent.
Executive Secretary Angara as such was an alter ego of the petitioner. He was the Little President. Indeed, he was authorized
by the petitioner to act for him in the critical hours and days before he abandoned Malacañang Palace. Thus, according to
the Angara Diary, the petitioner told Secretary Angara: “Mula umpisa pa lang ng kampanya, Ed, ikaw na lang pinakikinggan ko. At
hanggang sa huli, ikaw pa rin.” (Since the start of the campaign, Ed, you have been the only one I’ve listened to. And now at the end,
you still are.)”[17] This statement of full trust was made by the petitioner after Secretary Angara briefed him about the progress
of the first negotiation. True to this trust, the petitioner had to ask Secretary Angara if he would already leave Malacañang after
taking their final lunch on January 20, 2001 at about 1:00 p.m. The Angara Diary quotes the petitioner as saying to Secretary
Angara: “ed, kailangan ko na bang umalis? (Do I have to leave now?)” [18]Secretary Angara told him to go and he did. Petitioner
cannot deny that Secretary Angara headed his team of negotiators that met with the team of the respondent Arroyo to discuss the
peaceful and orderly transfer of power after his relinquishment of the powers of the presidency. The Diary shows that petitioner was
always briefed by Secretary Angara on the progress of their negotiations. Secretary Angara acted for and in behalf of the
petitioner in the crucial days before respondent Arroyo took her oath as President. Consequently, petitioner is bound by the acts
and declarations of Secretary Angara.
Under our rules of evidence, admissions of an agent (Secretary Angara) are binding on the principal (petitioner).[19] Jones
very well explains thereasons for the rule, viz: “What is done, by agent, is done by the principal through him, as through a mere
instrument. So, whatever is said by an agent, either in making a contract for his principal, or at the time and accompanying the
performance of any act within the scope of his authority, having relation to, and connected with, and in the course of the particular
contract or transaction in which he is then engaged, or in the language of the old writers, dum fervet opus is, in legal effect, said by his
principal and admissible in evidence against such principal.”[20]
Moreover, the ban on hearsay evidence does not cover independently relevant statements. These are statements which
are relevant independently of whether they are true or not. They belong to two (2) classes: (1) those statements which are the
very facts in issue, and (2) those statements which arecircumstantial evidence of the facts in issue. The second class includes the
following:[21]
a. Statement of a person showing his state of mind, that is, his mental condition, knowledge, belief, intention, ill will
and other emotions;
b. Statements of a person which show his physical condition, as illness and the like;
c. Statements of a person from which an inference may be made as to the state of mind of another, that is, the
knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the latter;
d. Statements which may identify the date, place and person in question; and
e. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness.
Again, Jones tells us why these independently relevant statements are not covered by the prohibition against hearsay
evidence:[22]

Ҥ 1088. Mental State or Condition РProof of Knowledge.- There are a number of comon issues, forming a general class, in proof of
which hearsay is so obviously necessary that it is not customary to refer to its admissibility as by virtue of any exception to the general
exclusionary rule. Admissibility, in such cases, is as of course. For example, where any mental state or condition is in issue, such
as motive, malice, knowledge, intent, assent or dissent, unless direct testimony of the particular person is to be taken as conclusive of
his state of mind, the only method of proof available is testimony of others to the acts or statements of such person. Where his
acts or statements are against his interest, they are plainly admissible within the rules hereinabove announced as to admissions against
interest. And even where not against interest, if they are so closely connected with the event or transaction in issue as to constitute one
of the very facts in controversy, they become admissible of necessity.”

As aforediscussed, The Angara Diary contains statements of the petitioner which reflect his state of mind and are circumstantial
evidence of his intent to resign. It also contains statements of Secretary Angara from which we can reasonably deduce petitioner’s
intent to resign. They are admissible and they are not covered by the rule on hearsay. This has long been a quiet area of our law on
evidence and petitioner’s attempt to foment a belated tempest cannot receive our imprimatur.
 Petitioner also contends that the rules on authentication of private writings and best evidence were violated in our
Decision, viz:

“The use of the Angara diary palpably breached several hornbook rules of evidence, such as the rule on authentication of private
writings…

xxx

A. Rule on Proof of Private Writings Violated

The rule governing private documents as evidence was violated. The law provides that before any private writing offered as authentic
is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: a) by anyone who saw the document executed or
written, or b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

xxx

B. Best Evidence Rule Infringed

Clearly, the newspaper reproduction is not the best evidence of the Angara diary. It is secondary evidence, of dubious authenticity. It
was however used by this Honorable Court without proof of the unavailability of the original or duplicate original of the diary. The
“Best Evidence Rule” should have been applied since the contents of the diary are the subject of inquiry.

The rule is that, except in four (4) specific instances, “[w]hen the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original document itself.”[23]

Petitioner’s contention is without merit. In regard to the Best Evidence rule, the Rules of Court provides in sections 2 to 4 of
Rule 130, as follows:

“Sec. 2. Documentary evidence. – Documents as evidence consist of writings or any material containing letters, words, numbers,
figures or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their contents.

Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. – When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence
shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:

(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;

(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
produce it after reasonable notice;

(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time
and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and

(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.

Sec. 4. Original of document. – (a) The original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.

(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally
regarded as originals.

(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all
the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals.”

It is true that the Court relied not upon the original but only copy of the Angara Diary as published in the Philippine Daily
Inquirer on February 4-6, 2001. In doing so, the Court, did not, however, violate the best evidence rule. Wigmore, in his book on
evidence, states that:

“Production of the original may be dispensed with, in the trial court’s discretion, whenever in the case in hand the opponent does not
bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring production.[24]
 “x x x

“In several Canadian provinces, the principle of unavailability has been abandoned, for certain documents in which ordinarily no real
dispute arised. This measure is a sensible and progressive one and deserves universal adoption (post, sec. 1233). Its essential feature
is that a copy may be used unconditionally, if the opponent has been given an opportunity to inspect it.” (empahsis supplied)

Francisco’s opinion is of the same tenor, viz:

“Generally speaking, an objection by the party against whom secondary evidence is sought to be introduced is essential to bring the
best evidence rule into application; and frequently, where secondary evidence has been admitted, the rule of exclusion might have
successfully been invoked if proper and timely objection had been taken. No general rule as to the form or mode of objecting to the
admission of secondary evidence is set forth. Suffice it to say here that the objection should be made in proper season – that is,
whenever it appears that there is better evidence than that which is offered and before the secondary evidence has been
admitted. The objection itself should be sufficiently definite to present a tangible question for the court’s consideration.”[25]

He adds:

“Secondary evidence of the content of the writing will be received in evidence if no objection is made to its reception.”[26]

In regard to the authentication of private writings, the Rules of Court provides in section 20 of Rule 132, viz:

“Sec. 20. Proof of private document. – Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution
and authenticity must be proved either:

(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or

(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.”

On the rule of authentication of private writings, Francisco states that:

“A proper foundation must be laid for the admission of documentary evidence; that is, the identity and authenticity of the document
must be reasonably established as a pre-requisite to its admission. (Rouw v. Arts, 174 Ark. 79, 294 S.W. 993, 52 A.L.R. 1263, and
others) However, a party who does not deny the genuineness of a proffered instrument may not object that it was not properly
identified before it was admitted in evidence. (Strand v. Halverson, 220 Iowa 1276, 264 N.W. 266, 103 A.L.R. 835).”[27]

Petitioner cites the case of State prosecutors v. Muro,[28] which frowned on reliance by courts on newspaper accounts. In that
case, Judge Muro was dismissed from the service for relying on a newspaper account in dismissing eleven (11) cases against Mrs.
Imelda Romualdez Marcos. There is a significant difference, however, between the Muro case and the cases at bar. In
the Muro case, Judge Muro dismissed the cases against Mrs. Marcos on the basis of a newspaper account without affording the
prosecution” the basic opportunity to be heard on the matter by way of a written comment or on oral argument. . .(this is) not only a
blatant denial of elementary due process to the Government but is palpably indicative of bad faith and partiality.” In the instant cases,
however, the petitioner had an opportunity to object to the admissibility of the Angara Diary when he filed his Memorandum
dated February 20, 2001, Reply Memorandum dated February 22, 2001, Supplemental Memorandum dated February 23, 2001, and
Second Supplemental memorandum dated February 24, 2001. He was therefore not denied due process. In the words of
Wigmore, supra, petitioner had “been given an opportunity to inspect” the Angara Diary but did not object to its admissibility. It is
already too late in the day to raise his objections in an Omnibus Motion, after the Angara Diary has been used as evidence and a
decision rendered partly on the basis thereof.
III
Temporary Inability

Petitioner argues that the Court misinterpreted the meaning of section 11, Article VII, of the Constitution in that congress can
only decide the issue of inability when there is a variance of opinion between a majority of the Cabinet and the President. The
situation presents itself when majority of the Cabinet determines that the President is unable to govern; later, the President informs
Congress that his inability has ceased but is contradicted by a majority of the members of the Cabinet. It is also urged that the
president’s judgment that he is unable to govern temporarily which is thereafter communicated to the Speaker of the House and the
President of the Senate is the political question which this Court cannot review.
 We cannot sustain the petitioner. Lest petitioner forgets, he himself made the submission in G.R. No. 146738 that “Congress
has the ultimate authority under the Constitution to determine whether the President is incapable of performing his functions
in the manner provided for in section 11 of Article VII.”[29] We sustained this submission and held that by its many acts, Congress
has already determined and dismissed the claim of alleged temporary inability to govern proffered by petitioner. If petitioner now
feels aggrieved by the manner Congress exercised its power, it is incumbent upon him to seek redress from Congress itself. The
power is conceded by the petitioner to be with Congress and its alleged erroneous exercise cannot be corrected by this
Court. The recognition of respondent Arroyo as our de jure president made by Congress is unquestionably a political judgment. It
is significant that House Resolution No. 176 cited as the bases of its judgment such factors as the “people’s loss of confidence on the
ability of former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada to effectively govern” and the “members of the international community had
extended their recognition of Her Excellency, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Republic of the Philippines” and it has a
constitutional duty “of fealty to the supreme will of the people x x x.” This political judgment may be right or wrong but
Congress is answerable only to the people for its judgment. Its wisdom is fit to be debated before the tribunal of the people and not
before a court of justice. Needles to state, the doctrine of separation of power constitutes an inseparable bar against this court’s
interposition of its power of judicial review to review the judgment of Congress rejecting petitioner’s claim that he is still the
President, albeit on leave and that respondent Arroyo is merely an acting President.
Petitioner attempts to extricate himself from his submission that Congress has the ultimate authority to determine his inability to
govern, and whose determination is a political question by now arguing that whether one is a de jure or de facto President is a
judicial question. Petitioner’s change of theory, ill disguised as it is, does not at all impress. The cases at bar do not present
the general issue of whether the respondent Arroyo is the de jure or a de facto President. Specific issues were raised to the Court for
resolution and we ruled on an issue by issue basis. On the issue of resignation under section 8, Article VII of the Constitution, we
held that the issue is legal and ruled that petitioner has resigned from office before respondent Arroyo took her oath as President. On
the issue of inability to govern under section 11, Article VII of the Constitution, we held that the Congress has the ultimate authority
to determine the question as opined by the petitioner himself and that the determination of Congress is a political judgment which this
Court cannot review. Petitioner cannot blur these specific rulings by the generalization that whether one is a de jure or de facto
President is a judicial question.
Petitioner now appears to fault Congress for its various acts expressed thru resolutions which brushed off his temporary
inability to govern and President-on-leave argument. He asserts that these acts of Congress should not be accorded any legal
significance because: (1) they are post facto and (2) a declaration of presidential incapacity cannot be implied.
We disagree. There is nothing in section 11 of Article VII of the Constitution which states that the declaration by Congress of
the President’s inability must always be a priori or before the Vice-President assumes the presidency. In the cases at bar, special
consideration should be given to the fact that the events which led to the resignation of the petitioner happened at express speed and
culminated on a Saturday. Congress was then not in session and had no reasonable opportunity to act a priori on petitioner’s
letter claiming inability to govern. To be sure, however, the petitioner cannot strictly maintain that the President of the Senate, the
Honorable Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. and the then Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Honorable Arnulfo P. Fuentebella,
recognized respondent Arroyo as the “constitutional successor to the presidency” post facto. Petitioner himself states that his letter
alleging his inability to govern was “received by the Office of the Speaker on January 20, 2001 at 8:30 A.M. and the Office of the
Senate at 9 P.M. of the same day.”[30] Respondent took her oath of office a few minutes past 12 o’clock in the afternoon of January
20. Before the oath-taking, Senate President Pimentel, Jr. and Speaker Fuentebella had prepared a Joint Statement which states:[31]
“Joint Statement of Support
and Recognition from the
Senate President and the Speaker
Of the House of Representatives

We, the elected leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives, are called upon to address the constitutional crisis affecting
the authority of the President to effectively govern our distressed nation. We understand that the Supreme Court at that time is issuing
an en banc resolution recognizing this political reality. While we may differ on the means to effect a change of leadership, we
however, cannot be indifferent and must act resolutely. Thus, in line with our sworn duty to represent our people and in pursuit
of our goals for peace and prosperity to all, we, the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, hereby
declare our support and recognition to the constitutional successor to the Presidency. We similarly call on all sectors to close
ranks despite our political differences. May God bless our nation in this period of new beginnings.

Mabuhay and Pilipinas at ang mamamayang Pilipino.

(Sgd.) AQUILINO PIMENTEL, JR.

Senate President

(Sgd.) ARNULFO P. FUENTEBELLA

Speaker of the House of Representatives”
This a priori recognition by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of respondent Arroyo as the
“constitutional successor to the presidency” was followed post facto by various resolutions of the Senate and the House, in effect,
confirming this recognition. Thus, Resolution No. 176 expressed “x x x the support of the House of Representatives to the assumption
into office by Vice-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Republic of the Philippines, extending its congratulations
and expressing its support for her administration as a partner in the attainment of the nation’s goal under the Constitution.
[32]
Resolution No. 82 of the Senate and Resolution No. 178 of the House of Representatives both confirmed the nomination of then
Senator Teofisto Guingona, Jr., as Vice-President.[33] It also passed Resolution No. 83 declaring the impeachment court functus
officio.[34] Both Houses sent bills to respondent Arroyo to be signed by her into law as President of the Philippines.[35] These acts of
Congress, a priori and post facto, cannot be dismissed as merely implied recognitions of respondent Arroyo, as the President
of the Republic. Petitioner’s insistence that respondent Arroyo is just a de facto President because said acts of Congress “ x x x are
mere circumstances of acquiescence calculated to induce people to submit to respondent’s exercise of the powers of the
presidency”[36] is a guesswork far divorced from reality to deserve further discussion.
Similarly way off the mark is petitioner’s point that “while the Constitution has made Congress the national board of canvassers
for presidential and vice-presidential elections, this Honorable Court nonetheless remains the sole judge in presidential and vice
presidential contests.[37] He thus postulates that “such constitutional provision[38] is indicative of the desire of the sovereign people to
keep out of the hands of Congress questions as to the legality of a person’s claim to the presidential office.” [39] Suffice to state that
the inference is illogical. Indeed, there is no room to resort to inference. The Constitution clearly sets out the structure on how
vacancies and election contest in the office of the President shall be decided. Thus, section 7 of Article VII covers the instance when
(a) the President-elect fails to qualify, (b) if a President shall not have been chosen and (c) if at the beginning of the term of the
President, the President-elect shall have died or shall have become permanently disabled. Section 8 of Article VII covers the
situation of the death, permanent disability, removal from office or resignation of the President. Section 11 of Article VII covers the
case where the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written
declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. In each case, the Constitution specifies the body that
will resolve the issues that may arise from the contingency. In case of election contest, section 4, Article VII provides that the
contests shall be resolved by this Court sitting en banc. In case of resignation of the President, it is not disputed that this Court has
jurisdiction to decide the issue. In case of inability to govern, section 11 of Article VII gives the Congress the power to adjudge the
issue and petitioner himself submitted this thesis which was shared by this Court. In light of these clear provisions of the Constitution,
it is inappropriate, to say the least, for petitioner to make inferences that simply distort their meanings.
IV
Impeachment and Absolute Immunity

Petitioner contends that this Court disregarded section 3 (7) of Article XI of the Constitution which provides:

“(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any
office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted should nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial and
punishment according to law.”

Petitioner reiterates the argument that he must be first convicted in the impeachment proceedings before he could be criminally
prosecuted. A plain reading of the provision will not yield this conclusion. The provision conveys two uncomplicated ideas: first, it
tells us that judgment in impeachment cases has a limited reach. . .i.e., it cannot extend further than removal from office and
disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, and second, it tells us theconsequence of the limited reach of
a judgment in impeachment proceedings considering its nature, i.e., that the party convicted shall still be liable and subject to
prosecution, trial and punishment according to law. No amount of manipulation will justify petitioner’s non sequitur submission that
the provision requires that his conviction in the impeachment proceedings is a condition sine qua non to his prosecution, trial and
punishment for the offenses he is now facing before the respondent Ombudsman.
Petitioner contends that the private and public prosecutors’ walk out from the impeachment proceedings “should be
considered failure to prosecute on the part of the public and private prosecutors, and the termination of the case by the Senate
is equivalent to acquittal.”[40] He explains “failure to prosecute” as the “failure of the prosecution to prove the case, hence dismissal
on such grounds is a dismissal on the merits.”[41] He then concludes that “dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute amounts to an
acquittal for purposes of applying the rule against double jeopardy.”[42]
Without ruling on the nature of impeachment proceedings, we reject petitioner’s submission.
The records will show that the prosecutors walked out in the January 16, 2001 hearing of the impeachment cases when by a
vote of 11-10, the Senator-judges refused to open the second envelope allegedly containing the P3.3 billion deposit of the petitioner in
a secret bank account under the name “ Jose Velarde”. The next day, January 17, the public prosecutors submitted a letter to the
Speaker of the House tendering their resignation. They also filed their Manifestation of Withdrawal of Appearance with the
impeachment tribunal. Senator Raul Roco immediately moved for the indefinite suspension of the impeachment proceedings until
the House of Representatives shall have resolved the resignation of the public prosecutors. The Roco motion was
then granted by Chief Justice Davide, Jr. Before the House could resolve the issue of resignation of its prosecutors or on January
20, 2001, petitioner relinquished the presidency and respondent Arroyo took her oath as President of the Republic. Thus,
on February 7, 2001, the Senate passed Resolution No. 83 declaring that the impeachment court is functus officio.
Prescinding from these facts, petitioner cannot invoke double jeopardy. Double jeopardy attaches only: (1) upon a valid
complaint; (2) before a competent court; (3) after arraignment; (4) when a valid plea has been entered; and (5) when the defendant was
acquitted or convicted or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.
[43]
Assuming arguendo that the first four requisites of double jeopardy were complied with, petitioner failed to satisfy the fifth
requisite for he was not acquitted nor was the impeachment proceeding dismissed without his express consent. Petitioner’s claim
of double jeopardy cannot be predicated on prior conviction for he was not convicted by the impeachment court. At best, his claim of
previous acquittal may be scrutinized in light of a violation of his right to speedy trial, which amounts to a failure to prosecute. As
Bernas points out, a failure to prosecute, which is what happens when the accused is not given a speedy trial, means failure of the
prosecution to prove the case. Hence, dismissal on such grounds is a dismissal on the merits.[44]
This Court held in Esmeña v. Pogoy[45], viz:

“If the defendant wants to exercise his constitutional right to a speedy trial, he should ask, not for the dismissal, but for the trial of the
case. After the prosecution’s motion for postponement of the trial is denied and upon order of the court the fiscal does not or cannot
produce his evidence and, consequently fails to prove the defendant’s guilt, the court upon defendant’s motion shall dismiss the case,
such dismissall amounting to an acquittal of the defendant.”

In a more recent case, this Court held:

“It is true that in an unbroken line of cases, we have held that the dismissal of cases on the ground of failure to prosecute is equivalent
to an acquittal that would bar further prosecution of the accused for the same offense. It must be stressed, however, that these
dismissals were predicated on the clear right of the accused to speedy trial. These cases are not applicable to the petition at bench
considering that the right of the private respondents to speedy trial has not been violated by the State. For this reason, private
respondents cannot invoke their right against double jeopardy.”[46]

Petitioner did not move for the dismissal of the impeachment case against him. Even assuming arguendo that there was a
move for its dismissal, not every invocation of an accused’s right to speedy trial is meritorious. While the Court accords due
importance to an accused’s right to a speedy trial and adheres to a policy of speedy administration of justice, this right cannot be
invoked loosely. Unjustified postponements which prolong the trial for an unreasonable length of time are what offend the right of the
accused to speedy trial.[47] The following provisions of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure are apropos:

“Rule 115, Section 1(h). Rights of accused at the trial. -- In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following
rights:

(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.”

“Rule 119, Section 2. Continuous trial until terminated; postponements.-- Trial once commenced shall continue from day to day as far
as practicable until terminated. It may be postponed for a reasonable length of time for good cause.

The court shall, after consultation with the prosecutor and defense counsel, set the case for continuous trial on a weekly or other short-
term trial calendar at the earliest possible time so as to ensure speedy trial. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed one hundred
eighty (180) days from the first day of trial, except as otherwise authorized by the Supreme Court.”

Petitioner therefore failed to show that the postponement of the impeachment proceedings was unjustified, much less that
it was for an unreasonable length of time. Recalling the facts, on January 17, 2001, the impeachment proceeding was suspended
until the House of Representatives shall have resolved the issue on the resignation of the public prosecutors. This was justified and
understandable for an impeachment proceeding without a panel of prosecutors is a mockery of the impeachment process. However,
three (3) days from the suspension or January 20, 2001, petitioner’s resignation supervened. With the sudden turn of events, the
impeachment court became functus officio and the proceedings were therefore terminated. By no stretch of the imagination can the
four-day period from the time the impeachment proceeding was suspended to the day petitioner resigned, constitute an unreasonable
period of delay violative of the right of the accused to speedy trial.
Nor can the claim of double jeopardy be grounded on the dismissal or termination of the case without the express consent
of the accused. We reiterate that the impeachment proceeding was closed only after the petitioner had resigned from the presidency,
thereby rendering the impeachment court functus officio. By resigning from the presidency, petitioner more than consented to the
termination of the impeachmment case against him, for he brought about the termination of the impeachment proceedings. We have
consistently ruled that when the dismissal or termination of the case is made at the instance of the accused, there is no double
jeopardy.[48]
 Petitioner stubbornly clings to the contention that he is entitled to absolute immunity from suit. His arguments are merely
recycled and we need not prolong the longevity of the debate on the subject. In our Decision, we exhaustively traced the origin of
executive immunity in our jurisdiction and its bends and turns up to the present time. We held that given the intent of the 1987
Constitution to breathe life to the policy that a public office is a public trust, the petitioner, as a non-sitting President, cannot claim
executive immunity for his alleged criminal acts committed while a sitting President. Petitioner’s rehashed arguments including
their thinly disguised new spins are based on the rejected contention that he is still President, albeit, a President on leave. His stance
that his immunity covers his entire term of office or until June 30, 2004 disregards the reality that he has relinquished the presidency
and there is now a new de jure President.
Petitioner goes a step further and avers that even a non-sitting President enjoys immunity from suit during his term of office. He
buttresses his position with the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, viz:

“Mr. Suarez. Thank you.

The last question is with reference to the Committee’s omitting in the draft proposal the immunity provision for the President. I agree
with Commissioner Nolledo that the Committee did very well in striking out this second sentence, at the very least, of the original
provision on immunity from suit under the 1973 Constitution. But would the Committee members not agree to a restoration of at least
the first sentence that the President shall be immune from suit during his tenure, considering that if we do not provide him that kind of
an immunity, he might be spending all his time facing litigations, as the President-in-exile in Hawaii is now facing litigations almost
daily?

Fr. Bernas: The reason for the omission is that we consider it understood in present jurisprudence that during his tenure he is
immune from suit.
Mr. Suarez: So there is no need to express it here.
Fr. Bernas: There is no need. It was that way before. The only innovation made by the 1973 Constitution was to make that
explicit and to add other things.
Mr. Suarez; On the understanding, I will not press for any more query, madam President.

I thank the Commissioner for the clarification.”[49]

Petitioner, however, fails to distinguish between term and tenure. The term means the time during which the officer may
claim to hold the office as of right, and fixes the interval after which the several incumbents shall succeed one another. The tenure
represents the term during which the incumbent actually holds office. The tenure may be shorter than the term for reasons within or
beyond the power of the incumbent.[50] From the deliberations, the intent of the framers is clear that the immunity of the
president from suit is concurrent only with his tenure and not his term.
Indeed, petitioner’s stubborn stance cannot but bolster the belief that the cases at bar were filed not really for petitioner to
reclaim the presidency but just to take advantage of the immunity attached to the presidency and thus, derail the investigation of the
criminal cases pending against him in the Office of the Ombudsman.
V
Prejudicial Publicity on the Ombudsman

Petitioner hangs tough on his submission that his due process rights to a fair trial have been prejudiced by pre-trial publicity. In
our Decision, we held that there is not enough evidence to sustain petitioner’s claim of prejudicial publicity. Unconvinced, petitioner
alleges that the vivid narration of events in our Decision itself proves the pervasiveness of the prejudicial publicity. He then posits the
thesis that “doubtless, the national fixation with the probable guilt of petitioner fueled by the hate campaign launched by some high
circulation newspaper and by the bully pulpit of priests and bishops left indelible impression on all sectors of the citizenry
andall regions, so harsh and so pervasive that the prosecution and the judiciary can no longer assure petitioner a sporting
chance.”[51] To be sure, petitioner engages inexageration when he alleges that “all sectors of the citizenry and all regions” have been
irrevocably influenced by this barrage of prejudicial publicity. This exaggeration collides with petitioner’s claim that he still
enjoys the support of the majority of our people, especially the masses.
Petitioner pleads that we apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing or the transaction speaks for itself) to support his
argument. Under the res ipsa loquitur rule in its broad sense, the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding
circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case, and present a
question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation. [52] It is not a rule of substantive law but more a procedural rule. Its mere
invocation does not exempt the plaintiff with the requirement of proof to prove negligence. It merely allows the plaintiff to present
along with the proof of the accident, enough of the attending circumstances to invoke the doctrine, creating an inference or
presumption of negligence and to thereby place on the defendant the burden of going forward with the proof.[53]
 We hold that it is inappropriate to apply the rule on res ipsa loquitur, a rule usually applied only in tort cases, to the cases at
bar. Indeed, there is no court in the whole world that has applied the res ipsa loquitur rule to resolve the issue of prejudicial
publicity. We again stress that the issue before us is whether the alleged pervasive publicity of the cases against the petitioner has
prejudiced the minds of the members of the panel of investigators. We reiterate the test we laid down in People v. Teehankee,[54] to
resolve this issue, viz:

“We cannot sustain appellant’s claim that he was denied the right to impartial trial due to prejudicial publicity. It is true that the print
and broadcast media gave the case at bar pervasive publicity, just like all high profile and high stake criminal trials. Then and now,
we rule that the right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press. To be sure, responsible reporting enhances an
accused’s right to a fair trial for, as well pointed out , a responsible press has always been regarded as the handmaiden of effective
judicial administration, especially in the criminal field x x x. The press does not simply publish information about trials but guards
against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and
criticism.

Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. The mere fact that the trial of appellant was given a
day-to-day, gavel-to-gavel coverage does not by itself prove that the publicity so permeated the mind of the trial judge and impaired
his impartiality. For one, it is impossible to seal the minds of members of the bench from pre-trial and other off-court publicity of
sensational criminal cases. The state of the art of our communication system brings news as hey happen straight to our breakfast
tables and right to our bedrooms. These news form part of our everyday menu of the facts and fictions of life. For another, our idea of
a fair and impartial judge is not that of a hermit who is out of touch with the world. We have not installed the jury system whose
members are overly protected from publicity lest they lost their impartiality. x x x x x x x x x. Our judges are learned in the law and
trained to disregard off-court evidence and on-camera performances of parties to a litigation. Their mere exposure to publications and
publicity stunts does not per se fatally infect their impartiality.

At best, appellant can only conjure possibility of prejudice on the part of the trial judge due to the barrage of publicity that
characterized the investigation and trial of the case. In Martelino, et al. v. Alejandro, et al., we rejected this standard of possibility of
prejudice and adopted the test of actual prejudice as we ruled that to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must be
allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be, by the barrage of publicity. In the
case at bar, the records do not show that the trial judge developed actual bias against appellant as a consequence of the extensive
media coverage of the pre-trial and trial of his case. The totality of circumstances of the case does not prove that the trial judge
acquired a fixed opinion as a result of prejudicial publicity which is incapable of change even by evidence presented during the
trial. Appellant has the burden to prove this actual bias and he has not discharged the burden.”

Petitioner keeps on pounding on the adverse publicity against him but fails to prove how the impartiality of the panel of
investigators from the Office of the Ombudsman has been infected by it. As we held before and we hold it again, petitioner has
completely failed to adduce any proof of actual prejudice developed by the members of the Panel of Investigators. This fact must be
established by clear and convincing evidence and cannot be left to loose surmises and conjectures. In fact, petitioner did not even
identify the members of the Panel of Investigators. We cannot replace this test of actual prejudice with the rule of res ipsa
loquitur as suggested by the petitioner. The latter rule assumes that an injury (i.e., prejudicial publicity) has been suffered and then
shifts the burden to the panel of investigators to prove that the impartiality of its members has been affected by said publicity. Such a
rule will overturn our case law that pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. The cases are
not wanting where an accused has been acquitted despite pervasive publicity.[55] For this reason, we continue to hold that it is not
enough for petitioner to conjure possibility of prejudice but must prove actual prejudice on the part of his investigators for the
Court to sustain his plea. It is plain that petitioner has failed to do so.
Petitioner agains suggests that the Court should order a 2-month cooling off period to allow passions to subside and hopefully
the alleged prejudicial publicity against him would die down. We regret not to acquiesce to the proposal. There is no assurance that
the so called 2-month cooling off period will achieve its purpose. The investigation of the petitioner is a natural media event. It is the
first time in our history that a President will be investigated by the Office of the Ombudsman for alleged commission of heinous
crimes while a sitting President. His investigation will even be monitored by the foreign press all over the world in view of its legal
and historic significance. In other words, petitioner cannot avoid the kleiglight of publicity. But what is important for the
petitioner is that his constitutional rights are not violated in the process of investigation. For this reason, we have warned the
respondent Ombudsman in our Decision to conduct petitioner’s preliminary investigation in a circus-free atmosphere. Petitioner is
represented by brilliant legal minds who can protect his right as an accused.
VI
Recusation

Finally, petitioner prays that “the members of this Honorable Court who went to EDSA put on record who they were and
consider recusing or inhibiting themselves, particularly those who had ex-parte contacts with those exerting pressure on this
Honorable Court, as mentioned in our Motion of March 9, 2001, given the need for the cold neutrality of impartial judges.”[56]
 We hold that the prayer lacks merit. There is no ground to inhibit the twelve (12) members of the Court who merely accepted
the invitation of the respondent Arroyo to attend her oath taking. As mere spectators of a historic event, said members of the
Court did not prejudge the legal basis of the claim of respondent Arroyo to the presidency at the time she took her oath. Indeed, the
Court in its en banc resolution on January 22, 2001, the first working day after respondent Arroyo took her oath as President, held in
Administrative Matter No. 01-1-05 SC, to wit:

“A.M. No. 01-1-05-SC – In re: Request for Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to Take Her Oath of Office as President of the
Republic of the Philippines before the Chief Justice – Acting on the urgent request of Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to be
sworn in as President of the Republic of the Philippines, addressed to the Chief Justice and confirmed by a letter to the Court, dated
January 20, 2001, which request was treated as an administrative matter, the court Resolved unanimously to confirm the authority
given by the twelve (12) members of the Court then present to the Chief Justice on January 20, 2001 to administer the oath of office to
Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Philippines, at noon of January 20, 2001.

This resolution is without prejudice to the disposition of any justiciable case that may be filed by a proper party.”

The above resolution was unanimously passed by the 15 members of the Court. It should be clear from the resolution that the
Court did not treat the letter of respondent Arroyo to be administered the oath by Chief Justice Davide, Jr., as a case but as an
administrative matter. If it were considered as a case, then petitioner has reason to fear that the Court has predetermined the
legitimacy of the claim of respondent Arroyo to the presidency. To dispel the erroneous notion, the Court precisely treated the
letter as an administrative matter and emphasized that it was “without prejudice to the disposition of any justiciable case that
may be filed by a proper party.” In further clarification, the Court on February 20, 2001 issued another resolution to inform the
parties and the public that it “xxx did not issue a resolution on January 20, 2001 declaring the office of the President vacant and that
neither did the Chief Justice issue a press statement justifying the alleged resolution.” Thus, there is no reason for petitioner to
request for the said twelve (12) justices to recuse themselves. To be sure, a motion to inhibit filed by a party after losing his
case is suspect and is regarded with general disfavor.
Moreover, to disqualify any of the members of the Court, particularly a majority of them, is nothing short of pro tanto depriving
the Court itself of its jurisdiction as established by the fundamental law. Disqualification of a judge is a deprivation of his judicial
power. And if that judge is the one designated by the Constitution to exercise the jurisdiction of his court, as is the case with the
Justices of this Court, the deprivation of his or their judicial power is equivalent to the deprivation of the judicial power of the court
itself. It affects the very heart of judicial independence.[57] The proposed mass disqualification, if sanctioned and ordered, would leave
the Court no alternative but to abandon a duty which it cannot lawfully discharge if shorn of the participation of its entire membership
of Justices.[58]
IN VIEW WHEREOF, petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in G.R. Nos. 146710-15 and his Omnibus Motion in G.R. No.
146738 are DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Melo, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J., no part for reason given in open court and in the extended explanation.
Vitug, J., see separate concurring opinion.
Mendoza, J., see concurring opinion.
Kapunan, J., concurs on the result but strongly reiterate my separate opinion in the case.
Ynares-Santiago, J., concurs in the result but maintains separate opinion in the main Decision.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., concurs in the result subject to separate opinion in the main Decision.
Panganiban, J., no part see Extended Explanation of Inhibition prom. on March 8, 2001.

EN BANC

G.R. No. 82585 November 14, 1988

MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, ANTONIO V. ROCES, FREDERICK K. AGCAOLI, and GODOFREDO L.

MANZANAS,petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. RAMON P. MAKASIAR, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35,
UNDERSECRETARY SILVESTRE BELLO III, of the Department of Justice, LUIS C. VICTOR, THE CITY FISCAL OF
MANILA and PRESIDENT CORAZON C. AQUINO, respondents.

G.R. No. 82827 November 14, 1988

LUIS D. BELTRAN, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. RAMON P. MAKASIAR, Presiding Judge of Branch 35 of the Regional Trial Court, at Manila, THE HON. LUIS
VICTOR, CITY FISCAL OF MANILA, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE WESTERN
POLICE DISTRICT, and THE MEMBERS OF THE PROCESS SERVING UNIT AT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
MANILA, respondents.

G.R. No. 83979 November 14, 1988.

LUIS D. BELTRAN, petitioner,

vs.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY CATALINO MACARAIG, SECRETARY OF JUSTICE SEDFREY ORDOÑEZ,
UNDERSECRETARY OF JUSTICE SILVESTRE BELLO III, THE CITY FISCAL OF MANILA JESUS F. GUERRERO,
and JUDGE RAMON P. MAKASIAR, Presiding Judge of Branch 35 of the Regional Trial Court, at Manila, respondents.

Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz for petitioners in G.R. No. 82585.

Perfecto V. Fernandez, Jose P. Fernandez and Cristobal P. Fernandez for petitioner in G.R. Nos. 82827 and 83979.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, three principal issues were raised: (1) whether or not petitioners were denied due process when
informations for libel were filed against them although the finding of the existence of a prima faciecase was still under review by the
Secretary of Justice and, subsequently, by the President; (2) whether or not the constitutional rights of Beltran were violated when
respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally examining the complainant and the witnesses, if any, to
determine probable cause; and (3) whether or not the President of the Philippines, under the Constitution, may initiate criminal
proceedings against the petitioners through the filing of a complaint-affidavit.

Subsequent events have rendered the first issue moot and academic. On March 30, 1988, the Secretary of Justice denied petitioners'
motion for reconsideration and upheld the resolution of the Undersecretary of Justice sustaining the City Fiscal's finding of a prima
facie case against petitioners. A second motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Beltran was denied by the Secretary of Justice
on April 7, 1988. On appeal, the President, through the Executive Secretary, affirmed the resolution of the Secretary of Justice on May
2, 1988. The motion for reconsideration was denied by the Executive Secretary on May 16, 1988. With these developments,
petitioners' contention that they have been denied the administrative remedies available under the law has lost factual support.

It may also be added that with respect to petitioner Beltran, the allegation of denial of due process of law in the preliminary
investigation is negated by the fact that instead of submitting his counter- affidavits, he filed a "Motion to Declare Proceedings
Closed," in effect waiving his right to refute the complaint by filing counter-affidavits. Due process of law does not require that the
respondent in a criminal case actually file his counter-affidavits before the preliminary investigation is deemed completed. All that is
required is that the respondent be given the opportunity to submit counter-affidavits if he is so minded.

The second issue, raised by petitioner Beltran, calls for an interpretation of the constitutional provision on the issuance of warrants of
arrest. The pertinent provision reads:

Art. III, Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant
of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination nder
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.

The addition of the word "personally" after the word "determined" and the deletion of the grant of authority by the 1973 Constitution
to issue warrants to "other responsible officers as may be authorized by law," has apparently convinced petitioner Beltran that the
Constitution now requires the judge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in his determination of probable cause
for the issuance of warrants of arrest. This is not an accurate interpretation.
What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence
of probable cause. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not
required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1)
personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on
the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report
and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable
cause.

Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise judges would be unduly laden with the preliminary examination and investigation of
criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed before their courts.

On June 30, 1987, the Supreme Court unanimously adopted Circular No. 12, setting down guidelines for the issuance of warrants of
arrest. The procedure therein provided is reiterated and clarified in this resolution.

It has not been shown that respondent judge has deviated from the prescribed procedure. Thus, with regard to the issuance of the
warrants of arrest, a finding of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction cannot be sustained.

Anent the third issue, petitioner Beltran argues that "the reasons which necessitate presidential immunity from suit impose a
correlative disability to file suit." He contends that if criminal proceedings ensue by virtue of the President's filing of her complaint-
affidavit, she may subsequently have to be a witness for the prosecution, bringing her under the trial court's jurisdiction. This,
continues Beltran, would in an indirect way defeat her privilege of immunity from suit, as by testifying on the witness stand, she
would be exposing herself to possible contempt of court or perjury.

The rationale for the grant to the President of the privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise of Presidential duties and
functions free from any hindrance or distraction, considering that being the Chief Executive of the Government is a job that, aside
from requiring all of the office holder's time, also demands undivided attention.

But this privilege of immunity from suit, pertains to the President by virtue of the office and may be invoked only by the holder of the
office; not by any other person in the President's behalf. Thus, an accused in a criminal case in which the President is complainant
cannot raise the presidential privilege as a defense to prevent the case from proceeding against such accused.

Moreover, there is nothing in our laws that would prevent the President from waiving the privilege. Thus, if so minded the President
may shed the protection afforded by the privilege and submit to the court's jurisdiction. The choice of whether to exercise the privilege
or to waive it is solely the President's prerogative. It is a decision that cannot be assumed and imposed by any other person.

As regards the contention of petitioner Beltran that he could not be held liable for libel because of the privileged character or the
publication, the Court reiterates that it is not a trier of facts and that such a defense is best left to the trial court to appreciate after
receiving the evidence of the parties.

As to petitioner Beltran's claim that to allow the libel case to proceed would produce a "chilling effect" on press freedom, the Court
finds no basis at this stage to rule on the point.

The petitions fail to establish that public respondents, through their separate acts, gravely abused their discretion as to amount to lack
of jurisdiction. Hence, the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for cannot issue.

WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondents,
the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petitions in G. R. Nos. 82585, 82827 and 83979. The Order to maintain the status quo contained
in the Resolution of the Court en banc dated April 7, 1988 and reiterated in the Resolution dated April 26, 1988 is LIFTED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino
Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.

SECTION 2

EN BANC
[G.R. No. 161434. March 3, 2004]
MARIA JEANETTE C. TECSON and FELIX B. DESIDERIO, JR., petitioners, vs. The COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
RONALD ALLAN KELLY POE (a.k.a. FERNANDO POE, JR.) and VICTORINO X. FORNIER,respondents.
[G.R. No. 161634. March 3, 2004]
ZOILO ANTONIO VELEZ, petitioner, vs. RONALD ALLAN KELLEY POE, a.k.a. FERNANDO POE, JR.,respondent.
[G. R. No. 161824. March 3, 2004]
VICTORINO X. FORNIER, petitioner, vs. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and RONALD ALLAN KELLEY POE,
ALSO KNOWN AS FERNANDO POE JR., respondents.
DECISION
VITUG, J.:
Citizenship is a treasured right conferred on those whom the state believes are deserving of the privilege. It is a “precious
heritage, as well as an inestimable acquisition,”[1] that cannot be taken lightly by anyone - either by those who enjoy it or by
those who dispute it.
Before the Court are three consolidated cases, all of which raise a single question of profound importance to the nation. The
issue of citizenship is brought up to challenge the qualifications of a presidential candidate to hold the highest office of the land. Our
people are waiting for the judgment of the Court with bated breath. Is Fernando Poe, Jr., the hero of silver screen, and now one of the
main contenders for the presidency, a natural-born Filipino or is he not?
The moment of introspection takes us face to face with Spanish and American colonial roots and reminds us of the rich heritage
of civil law and common law traditions, the fusion resulting in a hybrid of laws and jurisprudence that could be no less than distinctly
Filipino.

Antecedent Case Settings

On 31 December 2003, respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr. (hereinafter "FPJ"), filed his
certificate of candidacy for the position of President of the Republic of the Philippines under the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino
(KNP) Party, in the forthcoming national elections. In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ, representing himself to be a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines, stated his name to be "Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of birth to be 20 August 1939 and his
place of birth to be Manila.
Victorino X. Fornier, petitioner in G.R. No. 161824, entitled "Victorino X. Fornier, Petitioner, versus Hon. Commission on
Elections and Ronald Allan Kelley Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr., Respondents," initiated, on 09 January 2004, a petition
docketed SPA No. 04-003 before the Commission on Elections ("COMELEC") to disqualify FPJ and to deny due course or to cancel
his certificate of candidacy upon the thesis that FPJ made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy by claiming to be
a natural-born Filipino citizen when in truth, according to Fornier, his parents were foreigners; his mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was an
American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject. Granting, petitioner
asseverated, that Allan F. Poe was a Filipino citizen, he could not have transmitted his Filipino citizenship to FPJ, the latter being an
illegitimate child of an alien mother. Petitioner based the allegation of the illegitimate birth of respondent on two assertions - first,
Allan F. Poe contracted a prior marriage to a certain Paulita Gomez before his marriage to Bessie Kelley and, second, even if no such
prior marriage had existed, Allan F. Poe, married Bessie Kelly only a year after the birth of respondent.
In the hearing before the Third Division of the COMELEC on 19 January 2004, petitioner, in support of his claim, presented
several documentary exhibits - 1) a copy of the certificate of birth of FPJ, 2) a certified photocopy of an affidavit executed in Spanish
by Paulita Poe y Gomez attesting to her having filed a case for bigamy and concubinage against the father of respondent, Allan F. Poe,
after discovering his bigamous relationship with Bessie Kelley, 3) an English translation of the affidavit aforesaid, 4) a certified
photocopy of the certificate of birth of Allan F. Poe, 5) a certification issued by the Director of the Records Management and Archives
Office, attesting to the fact that there was no record in the National Archives that a Lorenzo Poe or Lorenzo Pou resided or entered the
Philippines before 1907, and 6) a certification from the Officer-In-Charge of the Archives Division of the National Archives to the
effect that no available information could be found in the files of the National Archives regarding the birth of Allan F. Poe.
On his part, respondent, presented twenty-two documentary pieces of evidence, the more significant ones being - a) a
certification issued by Estrella M. Domingo of the Archives Division of the National Archives that there appeared to be no available
information regarding the birth of Allan F. Poe in the registry of births for San Carlos, Pangasinan, b) a certification issued by the
Officer-In-Charge of the Archives Division of the National Archives that no available information about the marriage of Allan F. Poe
and Paulita Gomez could be found, c) a certificate of birth of Ronald Allan Poe, d) Original Certificate of Title No. P-2247 of the
Registry of Deeds for the Province of Pangasinan, in the name of Lorenzo Pou, e) copies of Tax Declaration No. 20844, No. 20643,
No. 23477 and No. 23478 in the name of Lorenzo Pou, f) a copy of the certificate of death of Lorenzo Pou, g) a copy of the purported
marriage contract between Fernando Pou and Bessie Kelley, and h) a certification issued by the City Civil Registrar of San Carlos
City, Pangasinan, stating that the records of birth in the said office during the period of from 1900 until May 1946 were totally
destroyed during World War II.
On 23 January 2004, the COMELEC dismissed SPA No. 04-003 for lack of merit. Three days later, or on 26 January 2004,
Fornier filed his motion for reconsideration. The motion was denied on 06 February 2004 by the COMELEC en banc. On 10
February 2004, petitioner assailed the decision of the COMELEC before this Court conformably with Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65,
of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The petition, docketed G. R. No. 161824, likewise prayed for a temporary restraining order,
a writ of preliminary injunction or any other resolution that would stay the finality and/or execution of the COMELEC resolutions.
The other petitions, later consolidated with G. R. No. 161824, would include G. R. No. 161434, entitled "Maria Jeanette C.
Tecson, and Felix B. Desiderio, Jr., vs. The Commission on Elections, Ronald Allan Kelley Poe (a.k.a. ‘Fernando Poe, Jr.’), and
Victorino X. Fornier," and the other, docketed G. R. No. 161634, entitled "Zoilo Antonio G. Velez, vs. Ronald Allan Kelley
Poe, a.k.a. Fernando Poe, Jr.," both challenging the jurisdiction of the COMELEC and asserting that, under Article VII, Section 4,
paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution, only the Supreme Court had original and exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the basic issue on the
case.

Jurisdiction of the Court

In G. R. No. 161824
In seeking the disqualification of the candidacy of FPJ and to have the COMELEC deny due course to or cancel FPJ’s certificate
of candidacy for alleged misrepresentation of a material fact (i.e., that FPJ was a natural-born citizen) before the COMELEC,
petitioner Fornier invoked Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code –
“Section 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. --- A verified petition seeking to deny due course or
to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained
therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false” –
in consonance with the general powers of COMELEC expressed in Section 52 of the Omnibus Election Code -
“Section 52. Powers and functions of the Commission on Elections. In addition to the powers and functions conferred upon it by the
Constitution, the Commission shall have exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of
elections for the purpose of ensuring free, orderly and honest elections” -
and in relation to Article 69 of the Omnibus Election Code which would authorize "any interested party" to file a verified petition to
deny or cancel the certificate of candidacy of any nuisance candidate.
Decisions of the COMELEC on disqualification cases may be reviewed by the Supreme Court per Rule 64 [2] in an action
for certiorari under Rule 65[3] of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 7, Article IX, of the 1987 Constitution also reads –
"Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the
date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the
last pleading, brief, or memorandum, required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided
by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari
by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof."
Additionally, Section 1, Article VIII, of the same Constitution provides that judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and
in such lower courts as may be established by law which power “includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.”
It is sufficiently clear that the petition brought up in G. R. No. 161824 was aptly elevated to, and could well be taken cognizance
of by, this Court. A contrary view could be a gross denial to our people of their fundamental right to be fully informed, and to make a
proper choice, on who could or should be elected to occupy the highest government post in the land.
In G. R. No. 161434 and G. R. No. 161634
Petitioners Tecson, et al., in G. R. No. 161434, and Velez, in G. R. No. 161634, invoke the provisions of Article VII, Section 4,
paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution in assailing the jurisdiction of the COMELEC when it took cognizance of SPA No. 04-003 and
in urging the Supreme Court to instead take on the petitions they directly instituted before it. The Constitutional provision cited reads:
"The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the
President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose."
The provision is an innovation of the 1987 Constitution. The omission in the 1935 and the 1973 Constitution to designate any tribunal
to be the sole judge of presidential and vice-presidential contests, has constrained this Court to declare, in Lopez vs. Roxas,[4] as “not
(being) justiciable” controversies or disputes involving contests on the elections, returns and qualifications of the President or Vice-
President. The constitutional lapse prompted Congress, on 21 June 1957, to enact Republic Act No. 1793, "An Act Constituting an
Independent Presidential Electoral Tribunal to Try, Hear and Decide Protests Contesting the Election of the President-Elect and the
Vice-President-Elect of the Philippines and Providing for the Manner of Hearing the Same." Republic Act 1793 designated the Chief
Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court to be the members of the tribunal. Although the subsequent adoption of the
parliamentary form of government under the 1973 Constitution might have implicitly affected Republic Act No. 1793, the statutory
set-up, nonetheless, would now be deemed revived under the present Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution.
Ordinary usage would characterize a "contest" in reference to a post-election scenario. Election contests consist of either an
election protest or a quo warranto which, although two distinct remedies, would have one objective in view, i.e., to dislodge the
winning candidate from office. A perusal of the phraseology in Rule 12, Rule 13, and Rule 14 of the "Rules of the Presidential
Electoral Tribunal," promulgated by the Supreme Court en banc on 18 April 1992, would support this premise -
“Rule 12. Jurisdiction. - The Tribunal shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the
President or Vice-President of the Philippines.
“Rule 13. How Initiated. - An election contest is initiated by the filing of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto against the
President or Vice-President. An election protest shall not include a petition for quo warranto. A petition for quo warranto shall not
include an election protest.
“Rule 14. Election Protest. - Only the registered candidate for President or for Vice-President of the Philippines who received the
second or third highest number of votes may contest the election of the President or the Vice-President, as the case may be, by filing a
verified petition with the Clerk of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal within thirty (30) days after the proclamation of the winner.”
The rules categorically speak of the jurisdiction of the tribunal over contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of
the "President" or "Vice-President", of the Philippines, and not of "candidates" for President or Vice-President. A quo
warranto proceeding is generally defined as being an action against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or
exercises a public office.[5] In such context, the election contest can only contemplate a post-election scenario. In Rule 14, only a
registered candidate who would have received either the second or third highest number of votes could file an election protest. This
rule again presupposes a post-election scenario.
It is fair to conclude that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, defined by Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution,
would not include cases directly brought before it, questioning the qualifications of a candidate for the presidency or vice-presidency
before the elections are held.
Accordingly, G. R. No. 161434, entitled "Maria Jeanette C. Tecson, et al., vs. Commission on Elections et al.," and G. R. No.
161634, entitled "Zoilo Antonio Velez vs. Ronald Allan Kelley Poe a.k.a. Fernando Poe, Jr." would have to be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
The Citizenship Issue

Now, to the basic issue; it should be helpful to first give a brief historical background on the concept of citizenship.
Perhaps, the earliest understanding of citizenship was that given by Aristotle, who, sometime in 384 to 322 B.C., described the
"citizen" to refer to a man who shared in the administration of justice and in the holding of an office. [6] Aristotle saw its significance if
only to determine the constituency of the "State," which he described as being composed of such persons who would be adequate in
number to achieve a self-sufficient existence.[7] The concept grew to include one who would both govern and be governed, for which
qualifications like autonomy, judgment and loyalty could be expected. Citizenship was seen to deal with rights and entitlements, on
the one hand, and with concomitant obligations, on the other.[8] In its ideal setting, a citizen was active in public life and fundamentally
willing to submit his private interests to the general interest of society.
The concept of citizenship had undergone changes over the centuries. In the 18th century, the concept was limited, by and large,
to civil citizenship, which established the rights necessary for individual freedom, such as rights to property, personal liberty and
justice.[9] Its meaning expanded during the 19th century to include political citizenship, which encompassed the right to participate in
the exercise of political power.[10]The 20th century saw the next stage of the development of social citizenship, which laid emphasis on
the right of the citizen to economic well-being and social security. [11] The idea of citizenship has gained expression in the modern
welfare state as it so developed in Western Europe. An ongoing and final stage of development, in keeping with the rapidly shrinking
global village, might well be the internationalization of citizenship.[12]

The Local Setting - from Spanish

Times to the Present
There was no such term as "Philippine citizens" during the Spanish regime but "subjects of Spain" or "Spanish subjects."[13] In
church records, the natives were called 'indios', denoting a low regard for the inhabitants of the archipelago. Spanish laws on
citizenship became highly codified during the 19th century but their sheer number made it difficult to point to one comprehensive
law. Not all of these citizenship laws of Spain however, were made to apply to the Philippine Islands except for those explicitly
extended by Royal Decrees.[14]
Spanish laws on citizenship were traced back to the Novisima Recopilacion, promulgated in Spain on 16 July 1805 but as to
whether the law was extended to the Philippines remained to be the subject of differing views among experts; [15] however, three royal
decrees were undisputably made applicable to Spaniards in the Philippines - the Order de la Regencia of 14 August 1841,[16] the Royal
Decree of 23 August 1868 specifically defining the political status of children born in the Philippine Islands, [17] and finally, the Ley
Extranjera de Ultramar of 04 July 1870, which was expressly made applicable to the Philippines by the Royal Decree of 13 July
1870.[18]
The Spanish Constitution of 1876 was never extended to the Philippine Islands because of the express mandate of its Article 89,
according to which the provisions of the Ultramar among which this country was included, would be governed by special laws.[19]
It was only the Civil Code of Spain, made effective in this jurisdiction on 18 December 1889, which came out with the first
categorical enumeration of who were Spanish citizens. -
“(a) Persons born in Spanish territory,
“(b) Children of a Spanish father or mother, even if they were born outside of Spain,
“(c) Foreigners who have obtained naturalization papers,
“(d) Those who, without such papers, may have become domiciled inhabitants of any town of the Monarchy.”[20]
The year 1898 was another turning point in Philippine history. Already in the state of decline as a superpower, Spain was forced
to so cede her sole colony in the East to an upcoming world power, the United States. An accepted principle of international law
dictated that a change in sovereignty, while resulting in an abrogation of all political laws then in force, would have no effect on civil
laws, which would remain virtually intact.
The Treaty of Paris was entered into on 10 December 1898 between Spain and the United States.[21] Under Article IX of the
treaty, the civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories ceded to the United States would be determined by
its Congress -
"Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the territory over which Spain by the present treaty relinquishes or cedes her
sovereignty may remain in such territory or may remove therefrom, retaining in either event all their rights of property, including the
right to sell or dispose of such property or of its proceeds; and they shall also have the right to carry on their industry, commerce, and
professions, being subject in respect thereof to such laws as are applicable to foreigners. In case they remain in the territory they may
preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making, before a court of record, within a year from the date of the exchange of
ratifications of this treaty, a declaration of their decision to preserve such allegiance; in default of which declaration they shall be held
to have renounced it and to have adopted the nationality of the territory in which they reside.
Thus –
"The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by
the Congress."[22]
Upon the ratification of the treaty, and pending legislation by the United States Congress on the subject, the native inhabitants of the
Philippines ceased to be Spanish subjects. Although they did not become American citizens, they, however, also ceased to be "aliens"
under American laws and were thus issued passports describing them to be citizens of the Philippines entitled to the protection of the
United States.
The term "citizens of the Philippine Islands" appeared for the first time in the Philippine Bill of 1902, also commonly referred to
as the Philippine Organic Act of 1902, the first comprehensive legislation of the Congress of the United States on the Philippines -
".... that all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein, who were Spanish subjects on the 11th day of April,
1891, and then resided in said Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the
Philippine Islands and as such entitled to the protection of the United States, except such as shall have elected to preserve their
allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain, signed
at Paris, December tenth eighteen hundred and ninety eight."[23]
Under the organic act, a “citizen of the Philippines” was one who was an inhabitant of the Philippines, and a Spanish subject on the
11th day of April 1899. The term “inhabitant” was taken to include 1) a native-born inhabitant, 2) an inhabitant who was a native of
Peninsular Spain, and 3) an inhabitant who obtained Spanish papers on or before 11 April 1899.[24]
Controversy arose on to the status of children born in the Philippines from 11 April 1899 to 01 July 1902, during which period
no citizenship law was extant in the Philippines. Weight was given to the view, articulated in jurisprudential writing at the time, that
the common law principle ofjus soli, otherwise also known as the principle of territoriality, operative in the United States and
England, governed those born in the Philippine Archipelago within that period.[25] More about this later.
In 23 March 1912, the Congress of the United States made the following amendment to the Philippine Bill of 1902 -
"Provided, That the Philippine Legislature is hereby authorized to provide by law for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship by those
natives of the Philippine Islands who do not come within the foregoing provisions, the natives of other insular possession of the
United States, and such other persons residing in the Philippine Islands who would become citizens of the United States, under the
laws of the United States, if residing therein."[26]
With the adoption of the Philippine Bill of 1902, the concept of "Philippine citizens" had for the first time crystallized. The word
"Filipino" was used by William H. Taft, the first Civil Governor General in the Philippines when he initially made mention of it in his
slogan, "The Philippines for the Filipinos." In 1916, the Philippine Autonomy Act, also known as the Jones Law restated virtually the
provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902, as so amended by the Act of Congress in 1912 -
“That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and
ninety-nine, and then resided in said Islands, and their children born subsequently thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens
of the Philippine Islands, except such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the
provisions of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain, signed at Paris December tenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-
eight and except such others as have since become citizens of some other country; Provided, That the Philippine Legislature, herein
provided for, is hereby authorized to provide for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship by those natives of the Philippine Islands
who do not come within the foregoing provisions, the natives of the insular possessions of the United States, and such other persons
residing in the Philippine Islands who are citizens of the United States, or who could become citizens of the United States under the
laws of the United States, if residing therein."
Under the Jones Law, a native-born inhabitant of the Philippines was deemed to be a citizen of the Philippines as of 11 April
1899 if he was 1) a subject of Spain on 11 April 1899, 2) residing in the Philippines on said date, and, 3) since that date, not a citizen
of some other country.
While there was, at one brief time, divergent views on whether or not jus soli was a mode of acquiring citizenship, the 1935
Constitution brought to an end to any such link with common law, by adopting, once and for all, jus sanguinis or blood relationship as
being the basis of Filipino citizenship -
“Section 1, Article III, 1935 Constitution. The following are citizens of the Philippines -
“(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this Constitution
“(2) Those born in the Philippines Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to public
office in the Philippine Islands.
“(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
“(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship.
“(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.”
Subsection (4), Article III, of the 1935 Constitution, taken together with existing civil law provisions at the time, which provided
that women would automatically lose their Filipino citizenship and acquire that of their foreign husbands, resulted in discriminatory
situations that effectively incapacitated the women from transmitting their Filipino citizenship to their legitimate children and required
illegitimate children of Filipino mothers to still elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Seeking to correct this
anomaly, as well as fully cognizant of the newly found status of Filipino women as equals to men, the framers of the 1973
Constitution crafted the provisions of the new Constitution on citizenship to reflect such concerns -
“Section 1, Article III, 1973 Constitution - The following are citizens of the Philippines:
“(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.
“(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines.
“(3) Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five.
“(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.”
For good measure, Section 2 of the same article also further provided that –
"A female citizen of the Philippines who marries an alien retains her Philippine citizenship, unless by her act or omission she is
deemed, under the law to have renounced her citizenship."
The 1987 Constitution generally adopted the provisions of the 1973 Constitution, except for subsection (3) thereof that aimed to
correct the irregular situation generated by the questionable proviso in the 1935 Constitution.
Section I, Article IV, 1987 Constitution now provides:
“The following are citizens of the Philippines:
“(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.
“(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines.
“(3) Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority; and
“(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.”

The Case Of FPJ

Section 2, Article VII, of the 1987 Constitution expresses:
"No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write,
at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such
election."
The term "natural-born citizens," is defined to include "those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship."[27]
The date, month and year of birth of FPJ appeared to be 20 August 1939 during the regime of the 1935 Constitution. Through its
history, four modes of acquiring citizenship - naturalization, jus soli, res judicata and jus sanguinis[28] – had been in vogue. Only
two, i.e., jus soli andjus sanguinis, could qualify a person to being a “natural-born” citizen of the Philippines. Jus soli, per Roa vs.
Collector of Customs[29] (1912), did not last long. With the adoption of the 1935 Constitution and the reversal of Roa in Tan Chong
vs. Secretary of Labor[30] (1947), jus sanguinis or blood relationship would now become the primary basis of citizenship by birth.
Documentary evidence adduced by petitioner would tend to indicate that the earliest established direct ascendant of FPJ was his
paternal grandfather Lorenzo Pou, married to Marta Reyes, the father of Allan F. Poe. While the record of birth of Lorenzo Pou had
not been presented in evidence, his death certificate, however, identified him to be a Filipino, a resident of San Carlos, Pangasinan,
and 84 years old at the time of his death on 11 September 1954. The certificate of birth of the father of FPJ, Allan F. Poe, showed that
he was born on 17 May 1915 to an Español father, Lorenzo Pou, and a mestiza Español mother, Marta Reyes. Introduced by
petitioner was an “uncertified” copy of a supposed certificate of the alleged marriage of Allan F. Poe and Paulita Gomez on 05 July
1936. The marriage certificate of Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley reflected the date of their marriage to be on 16 September 1940. In
the same certificate, Allan F. Poe was stated to be twenty-five years old, unmarried, and a Filipino citizen, and Bessie Kelley to be
twenty-two years old, unmarried, and an American citizen. The birth certificate of FPJ, would disclose that he was born on 20 August
1939 to Allan F. Poe, a Filipino, twenty-four years old, married to Bessie Kelly, an American citizen, twenty-one years old and
married.
Considering the reservations made by the parties on the veracity of some of the entries on the birth certificate of respondent and
the marriage certificate of his parents, the only conclusions that could be drawn with some degree of certainty from the documents
would be that -
1. The parents of FPJ were Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley;
2. FPJ was born to them on 20 August 1939;
3. Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley were married to each other on 16 September, 1940;
4. The father of Allan F. Poe was Lorenzo Poe; and
5. At the time of his death on 11 September 1954, Lorenzo Poe was 84 years old.
Would the above facts be sufficient or insufficient to establish the fact that FPJ is a natural-born Filipino citizen? The marriage
certificate of Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley, the birth certificate of FPJ, and the death certificate of Lorenzo Pou are documents of
public record in the custody of a public officer. The documents have been submitted in evidence by both contending parties during
the proceedings before the COMELEC.
The birth certificate of FPJ was marked Exhibit "A" for petitioner and Exhibit "3" for respondent. The marriage certificate of
Allan F. Poe to Bessie Kelley was submitted as Exhibit "21" for respondent. The death certificate of Lorenzo Pou was submitted by
respondent as his Exhibit "5." While the last two documents were submitted in evidence for respondent, the admissibility thereof,
particularly in reference to the facts which they purported to show, i.e., the marriage certificate in relation to the date of marriage of
Allan F. Poe to Bessie Kelley and the death certificate relative to the death of Lorenzo Pou on 11 September 1954 in San Carlos,
Pangasinan, were all admitted by petitioner, who had utilized those material statements in his argument. All three documents were
certified true copies of the originals.
Section 3, Rule 130, Rules of Court states that -
“Original document must be produced; exceptions. - When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
“x x x xxx xxx
“(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public office or is recorded in a public office.”
Being public documents, the death certificate of Lorenzo Pou, the marriage certificate of Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelly, and the birth
certificate of FPJ, constitute prima facie proof of their contents. Section 44, Rule 130, of the Rules of Court provides:
“Entries in official records. Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or
by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.”
The trustworthiness of public documents and the value given to the entries made therein could be grounded on 1) the sense of
official duty in the preparation of the statement made, 2) the penalty which is usually affixed to a breach of that duty, 3) the routine
and disinterested origin of most such statements, and 4) the publicity of record which makes more likely the prior exposure of such
errors as might have occurred.[31]
The death certificate of Lorenzo Pou would indicate that he died on 11 September 1954, at the age of 84 years, in San Carlos,
Pangasinan. It could thus be assumed that Lorenzo Pou was born sometime in the year 1870 when the Philippines was still a colony of
Spain. Petitioner would argue that Lorenzo Pou was not in the Philippines during the crucial period of from 1898 to 1902 considering
that there was no existing record about such fact in the Records Management and Archives Office. Petitioner, however, likewise
failed to show that Lorenzo Pou was at any other place during the same period. In his death certificate, the residence of Lorenzo Pou
was stated to be San Carlos, Pangasinan. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it should be sound to conclude, or at least to
presume, that the place of residence of a person at the time of his death was also his residence before death. It would be extremely
doubtful if the Records Management and Archives Office would have had complete records of all residents of the Philippines from
1898 to 1902.
Proof of Paternity and Filiation
Under Civil Law.

Petitioner submits, in any case, that in establishing filiation (relationship or civil status of the child to the father [or mother]) or
paternity (relationship or civil status of the father to the child) of an illegitimate child, FPJ evidently being an illegitimate son
according to petitioner, the mandatory rules under civil law must be used.
Under the Civil Code of Spain, which was in force in the Philippines from 08 December 1889 up until the day prior to 30 August
1950 when the Civil Code of the Philippines took effect, acknowledgment was required to establish filiation or
paternity. Acknowledgment was either judicial (compulsory) or voluntary. Judicial or compulsory acknowledgment was possible
only if done during the lifetime of the putative parent; voluntary acknowledgment could only be had in a record of birth, a will, or a
public document.[32] Complementary to the new code was Act No. 3753 or the Civil Registry Law expressing in Section 5 thereof, that
-

“In case of an illegitimate child, the birth certificate shall be signed and sworn to jointly by the parents of the infant or only by the
mother if the father refuses. In the latter case, it shall not be permissible to state or reveal in the document the name of the father who
refuses to acknowledge the child, or to give therein any information by which such father could be identified.”
In order that the birth certificate could then be utilized to prove voluntary acknowledgment of filiation or paternity, the certificate was
required to be signed or sworn to by the father. The failure of such requirement rendered the same useless as being an authoritative
document of recognition.[33] In Mendoza vs. Mella,[34] the Court ruled -

"Since Rodolfo was born in 1935, after the registry law was enacted, the question here really is whether or not his birth certificate
(Exhibit 1), which is merely a certified copy of the registry record, may be relied upon as sufficient proof of his having been
voluntarily recognized. No such reliance, in our judgment, may be placed upon it. While it contains the names of both parents, there
is no showing that they signed the original, let alone swore to its contents as required in Section 5 of Act No. 3753. For all that might
have happened, it was not even they or either of them who furnished the data to be entered in the civil register. Petitioners say that in
any event the birth certificate is in the nature of a public document wherein voluntary recognition of a natural child may also be made,
according to the same Article 131. True enough, but in such a case, there must be a clear statement in the document that the parent
recognizes the child as his or her own."
In the birth certificate of respondent FPJ, presented by both parties, nowhere in the document was the signature of Allan F. Poe
found. There being no will apparently executed, or at least shown to have been executed, by decedent Allan F. Poe, the only other
proof of voluntary recognition remained to be "some other public document." In Pareja vs. Pareja,[35] this Court defined what could
constitute such a document as proof of voluntary acknowledgment:

"Under the Spanish Civil Code there are two classes of public documents, those executed by private individuals which must be
authenticated by notaries, and those issued by competent public officials by reason of their office. The public document pointed out
in Article 131 as one of the means by which recognition may be made belongs to the first class."
Let us leave it at that for the moment.
The 1950 Civil Code categorized the acknowledgment or recognition of illegitimate children into voluntary, legal or
compulsory. Voluntary recognition was required to be expressedly made in a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of
record or in any authentic writing. Legal acknowledgment took place in favor of full blood brothers and sisters of an illegitimate child
who was recognized or judicially declared as natural. Compulsory acknowledgment could be demanded generally in cases when the
child had in his favor any evidence to prove filiation. Unlike an action to claim legitimacy which would last during the lifetime of the
child, and might pass exceptionally to the heirs of the child, an action to claim acknowledgment, however, could only be brought
during the lifetime of the presumed parent.
Amicus Curiae Ruben F. Balane defined, during the oral argument, "authentic writing," so as to be an authentic writing for
purposes of voluntary recognition, simply as being a genuine or indubitable writing of the father. The term would include a public
instrument (one duly acknowledged before a notary public or other competent official) or a private writing admitted by the father to be
his.
The Family Code has further liberalized the rules; Article 172, Article 173, and Article 175 provide:

“Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:

“(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or

“(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent
concerned.

“In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:

“(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or

“(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.

“Art. 173. The action to claim legitimacy may be brought by the child during his or her lifetime and shall be transmitted to the
heirs should the child die during minority or in a state of insanity. In these cases, the heirs shall have a period of five years within
which to institute the action.

“The action already commenced by the child shall survive notwithstanding the death of either or both of the parties.

“x x x xxx x x x.

“Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same, evidence as legitimate
children.

“The action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173, except when the action is based on the second paragraph
of Article 172, in which case the action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent.”
The provisions of the Family Code are retroactively applied; Article 256 of the code reads:

"Art. 256. This Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance
with the Civil Code or other laws.”
Thus, in Vda. de Sy-Quia vs. Court of Appeals,[36] the Court has ruled:

"We hold that whether Jose was a voluntarily recognized natural child should be decided under Article 278 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines. Article 2260 of that Code provides that 'the voluntary recognition of a natural child shall take place according to this
Code, even if the child was born before the effectivity of this body of laws' or before August 30, 1950. Hence, Article 278 may be
given retroactive effect."
It should be apparent that the growing trend to liberalize the acknowledgment or recognition of illegitimate children is an attempt
to break away from the traditional idea of keeping well apart legitimate and non-legitimate relationships within the family in favor of
the greater interest and welfare of the child. The provisions are intended to merely govern the private and personal affairs of the
family. There is little, if any, to indicate that the legitimate or illegitimate civil status of the individual would also affect his political
rights or, in general, his relationship to the State. While, indeed, provisions on "citizenship" could be found in the Civil Code, such
provisions must be taken in the context of private relations, the domain of civil law; particularly -

"Civil Law is that branch of law which has for its double purpose the organization of the family and the regulation of property. It has
thus [been] defined as the mass of precepts which determine and regulate the relations of assistance, authority and obedience among
members of a family, and those which exist among members of a society for the protection of private interests."[37]
In Yañez de Barnuevo vs. Fuster,[38] the Court has held:
"In accordance with Article 9 of the Civil Code of Spain, x x x the laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition
and legal capacity of persons, govern Spaniards although they reside in a foreign country; that, in consequence, 'all questions of a civil
nature, such as those dealing with the validity or nullity of the matrimonial bond, the domicile of the husband and wife, their support,
as between them, the separation of their properties, the rules governing property, marital authority, division of conjugal property, the
classification of their property, legal causes for divorce, the extent of the latter, the authority to decree it, and, in general, the civil
effects of marriage and divorce upon the persons and properties of the spouses, are questions that are governed exclusively by the
national law of the husband and wife."
The relevance of "citizenship" or "nationality" to Civil Law is best exemplified in Article 15 of the Civil Code, stating that -

"Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the
Philippines, even though living abroad" -
that explains the need to incorporate in the code a reiteration of the Constitutional provisions on citizenship. Similarly, citizenship is
significant in civil relationships found in different parts of the Civil Code, [39] such as on successional rights and family relations.[40] In
adoption, for instance, an adopted child would be considered the child of his adoptive parents and accorded the same rights as their
legitimate child but such legal fiction extended only to define his rights under civil law[41] and not his political status.
Civil law provisions point to an obvious bias against illegitimacy. This discriminatory attitude may be traced to the Spanish
family and property laws, which, while defining proprietary and successional rights of members of the family, provided distinctions in
the rights of legitimate and illegitimate children. In the monarchial set-up of old Spain, the distribution and inheritance of titles and
wealth were strictly according to bloodlines and the concern to keep these bloodlines uncontaminated by foreign blood was
paramount.
These distinctions between legitimacy and illegitimacy were codified in the Spanish Civil Code, and the invidious discrimination
survived when the Spanish Civil Code became the primary source of our own Civil Code. Such distinction, however, remains and
should remain only in the sphere of civil law and not unduly impede or impinge on the domain of political law.
The proof of filiation or paternity for purposes of determining his citizenship status should thus be deemed independent from and
not inextricably tied up with that prescribed for civil law purposes. The Civil Code or Family Code provisions on proof of filiation or
paternity, although good law, do not have preclusive effects on matters alien to personal and family relations. The ordinary rules on
evidence could well and should govern. For instance, the matter about pedigree is not necessarily precluded from being applicable by
the Civil Code or Family Code provisions.
Section 39, Rule 130, of the Rules of Court provides -

“Act or Declaration about pedigree. The act or declaration of a person deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of
another person related to him by birth or marriage, may be received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy, and the
relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The word `pedigree’ includes
relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the places where these facts occurred, and the names of the
relatives. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree.”
For the above rule to apply, it would be necessary that (a) the declarant is already dead or unable to testify, (b) the pedigree of a
person must be at issue, (c) the declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedigree is in question, (d) declaration must be made
before the controversy has occurred, and (e) the relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree is in question must
be shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.
Thus, the duly notarized declaration made by Ruby Kelley Mangahas, sister of Bessie Kelley Poe submitted as Exhibit 20 before
the COMELEC, might be accepted to prove the acts of Allan F. Poe, recognizing his own paternal relationship with FPJ, i.e, living
together with Bessie Kelley and his children (including respondent FPJ) in one house, and as one family -

"I, Ruby Kelley Mangahas, of legal age and sound mind, presently residing in Stockton, California, U.S.A., after being sworn in
accordance with law do hereby declare that:

“1. I am the sister of the late Bessie Kelley Poe.

“2. Bessie Kelley Poe was the wife of Fernando Poe, Sr.

“3. Fernando and Bessie Poe had a son by the name of Ronald Allan Poe, more popularly known in the Philippines as
`Fernando Poe, Jr.,’ or `FPJ’.

“4. Ronald Allan Poe `FPJ’ was born on August 20, 1939 at St. Luke's Hospital, Magdalena Street, Manila.
 “x x x xxx xxx

“7. Fernando Poe Sr., and my sister Bessie, met and became engaged while they were students at the University of the
Philippines in 1936. I was also introduced to Fernando Poe, Sr., by my sister that same year.

“8. Fernando Poe, Sr., and my sister Bessie had their first child in 1938.

“9. Fernando Poe, Sr., my sister Bessie and their first three children, Elizabeth, Ronald, Allan and Fernando II, and
myself lived together with our mother at our family's house on Dakota St. (now Jorge Bocobo St.), Malate until the
liberation of Manila in 1945, except for some months between 1943-1944.

“10. Fernando Poe, Sr., and my sister, Bessie, were blessed with four (4) more children after Ronald Allan Poe.

“x x x xxx xxx

“18. I am executing this Declaration to attest to the fact that my nephew, Ronald Allan Poe is a natural born Filipino, and
that he is the legitimate child of Fernando Poe, Sr.

“Done in City of Stockton, California, U.S.A., this 12th day of January 2004.

Ruby Kelley Mangahas

Declarant

DNA Testing
In case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish or would be difficult to obtain, DNA testing,
which examines genetic codes obtained from body cells of the illegitimate child and any physical residue of the long dead parent
could be resorted to. A positive match would clear up filiation or paternity. In Tijing vs. Court of Appeals,[42] this Court has
acknowledged the strong weight of DNA testing -

"Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods unless we adopt the modern and scientific ways available. Fortunately,
we have now the facility and expertise in using DNA test for identification and parentage testing. The University of the Philippines
Natural Science Research Institute (UP-NSRI) DNA Analysis Laboratory has now the capability to conduct DNA typing using short
tandem repeat (STR) analysis. The analysis is based on the fact that the DNA of a child/person has two (2) copies, one copy from the
mother and the other from the father. The DNA from the mother, the alleged father and the child are analyzed to establish
parentage. Of course, being a novel scientific technique, the use of DNA test as evidence is still open to challenge. Eventually, as the
appropriate case comes, courts should not hesitate to rule on the admissibility of DNA evidence. For it was said, that courts should
apply the results of science when competently obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject said result is to deny progress."

Petitioner’s Argument For

Jurisprudential Conclusiveness

Petitioner would have it that even if Allan F. Poe were a Filipino citizen, he could not have transmitted his citizenship to
respondent FPJ, the latter being an illegitimate child. According to petitioner, prior to his marriage to Bessie Kelley, Allan F. Poe, on
July 5, 1936, contracted marriage with a certain Paulita Gomez, making his subsequent marriage to Bessie Kelley bigamous and
respondent FPJ an illegitimate child. The veracity of the supposed certificate of marriage between Allan F. Poe and Paulita Gomez
could be most doubtful at best. But the documentary evidence introduced by no less than respondent himself, consisting of a birth
certificate of respondent and a marriage certificate of his parents showed that FPJ was born on 20 August 1939 to a Filipino father and
an American mother who were married to each other a year later, or on 16 September 1940. Birth to unmarried parents would make
FPJ an illegitimate child. Petitioner contended that as an illegitimate child, FPJ so followed the citizenship of his mother, Bessie
Kelley, an American citizen, basing his stand on the ruling of this Court in Morano vs. Vivo,[43] citing Chiongbian vs. de
Leon[44] and Serra vs. Republic.[45]
On the above score, the disquisition made by amicus curiae Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ, is most convincing; he states -

"We must analyze these cases and ask what the lis mota was in each of them. If the pronouncement of the Court on jus sanguinis was
on the lis mota, the pronouncement would be a decision constituting doctrine under the rule of stare decisis. But if the pronouncement
was irrelevant to the lis mota, the pronouncement would not be a decision but a mere obiter dictum which did not establish doctrine. I
therefore invite the Court to look closely into these cases.

“First, Morano vs. Vivo. The case was not about an illegitimate child of a Filipino father. It was about a stepson of a Filipino, a
stepson who was the child of a Chinese mother and a Chinese father. The issue was whether the stepson followed the naturalization of
the stepfather. Nothing about jus sanguinis there. The stepson did not have the blood of the naturalized stepfather.

“Second, Chiongbian vs. de Leon. This case was not about the illegitimate son of a Filipino father. It was about a legitimate son of a
father who had become Filipino by election to public office before the 1935 Constitution pursuant to Article IV, Section 1(2) of the
1935 Constitution. No one was illegitimate here.

“Third, Serra vs. Republic. The case was not about the illegitimate son of a Filipino father. Serra was an illegitimate child of a
Chinese father and a Filipino mother. The issue was whether one who was already a Filipino because of his mother who still needed to
be naturalized. There is nothing there about invidious jus sanguinis.

“Finally, Paa vs. Chan.[46] This is a more complicated case. The case was about the citizenship of Quintin Chan who was the son of
Leoncio Chan. Quintin Chan claimed that his father, Leoncio, was the illegitimate son of a Chinese father and a Filipino
mother. Quintin therefore argued that he got his citizenship from Leoncio, his father. But the Supreme Court said that there was no
valid proof that Leoncio was in fact the son of a Filipina mother. The Court therefore concluded that Leoncio was not Filipino. If
Leoncio was not Filipino, neither was his son Quintin. Quintin therefore was not only not a natural-born Filipino but was not even a
Filipino.

“The Court should have stopped there. But instead it followed with an obiter dictum. The Court said obiter that even if Leoncio,
Quintin's father, were Filipino, Quintin would not be Filipino because Quintin was illegitimate. This statement about Quintin, based
on a contrary to fact assumption, was absolutely unnecessary for the case. x x x It was obiter dictum, pure and simple, simply
repeating the obiter dictum in Morano vs. Vivo.

“x x x xxx xxx

"Aside from the fact that such a pronouncement would have no textual foundation in the Constitution, it would also violate the equal
protection clause of the Constitution not once but twice. First, it would make an illegitimate distinction between a legitimate child and
an illegitimate child, and second, it would make an illegitimate distinction between the illegitimate child of a Filipino father and the
illegitimate child of a Filipino mother.

“The doctrine on constitutionally allowable distinctions was established long ago by People vs. Cayat.[47] I would grant that the
distinction between legitimate children and illegitimate children rests on real differences. x x x But real differences alone do not
justify invidious distinction. Real differences may justify distinction for one purpose but not for another purpose.

“x x x What is the relevance of legitimacy or illegitimacy to elective public service? What possible state interest can there be for
disqualifying an illegitimate child from becoming a public officer. It was not the fault of the child that his parents had illicit
liaison. Why deprive the child of the fullness of political rights for no fault of his own? To disqualify an illegitimate child from
holding an important public office is to punish him for the indiscretion of his parents. There is neither justice nor rationality in that.
And if there is neither justice nor rationality in the distinction, then the distinction transgresses the equal protection clause and must be
reprobated.”
The other amici curiae, Mr. Justice Vicente Mendoza (a former member of this Court), Professor Ruben Balane and Dean Martin
Magallona, at bottom, have expressed similar views. The thesis of petitioner, unfortunately hinging solely on pure obiter dicta, should
indeed fail.
Where jurisprudence regarded an illegitimate child as taking after the citizenship of its mother, it did so for the benefit the
child. It was to ensure a Filipino nationality for the illegitimate child of an alien father in line with the assumption that the mother had
custody, would exercise parental authority and had the duty to support her illegitimate child. It was to help the child, not to prejudice
or discriminate against him.
The fact of the matter – perhaps the most significant consideration – is that the 1935 Constitution, the fundamental law
prevailing on the day, month and year of birth of respondent FPJ, can never be more explicit than it is. Providing neither conditions
nor distinctions, the Constitution states that among the citizens of the Philippines are “those whose fathers are citizens of the
Philippines.” There utterly is no cogent justification to prescribe conditions or distinctions where there clearly are none provided.

In Sum –
 (1) The Court, in the exercise of its power of judicial review, possesses jurisdiction over the petition in G. R. No. 161824,
filed under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. G.R. No. 161824 assails the resolution of the
COMELEC for alleged grave abuse of discretion in dismissing, for lack of merit, the petition in SPA No. 04-003 which has prayed for
the disqualification of respondent FPJ from running for the position of President in the 10th May 2004 national elections on the
contention that FPJ has committed material representation in his certificate of candidacy by representing himself to be a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines.
(2) The Court must dismiss, for lack of jurisdiction and prematurity, the petitions in G. R. No. 161434 and No. 161634
both having been directly elevated to this Court in the latter’s capacity as the only tribunal to resolve a presidential and vice-
presidential election contest under the Constitution. Evidently, the primary jurisdiction of the Court can directly be invoked only after,
not before, the elections are held.
(3) In ascertaining, in G.R. No. 161824, whether grave abuse of discretion has been committed by the COMELEC, it is
necessary to take on the matter of whether or not respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen, which, in turn, depended on whether or not
the father of respondent, Allan F. Poe, would have himself been a Filipino citizen and, in the affirmative, whether or not the alleged
illegitimacy of respondent prevents him from taking after the Filipino citizenship of his putative father. Any conclusion on the
Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou could only be drawn from the presumption that having died in 1954 at 84 years old, Lorenzo
would have been born sometime in the year 1870, when the Philippines was under Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, Pangasinan, his
place of residence upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any other evidence, could have well been his place of residence before
death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the “en masse Filipinization” that the Philippine Bill had effected in
1902. That citizenship (of Lorenzo Pou), if acquired, would thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe, father of respondent FPJ. The
1935 Constitution, during which regime respondent FPJ has seen first light, confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers are
Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate.
(4) But while the totality of the evidence may not establish conclusively that respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen of
the Philippines, the evidence on hand still would preponderate in his favor enough to hold that he cannot be held guilty of having
made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy in violation of Section 78, in relation to Section 74, of the Omnibus
Election Code. Petitioner has utterly failed to substantiate his case before the Court, notwithstanding the ample opportunity given to
the parties to present their position and evidence, and to prove whether or not there has been material misrepresentation, which, as so
ruled in Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC,[48] must not only be material, but also deliberate and willful.
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS –
1. G. R. No. 161434, entitled "Maria Jeanette C. Tecson and Felix B. Desiderio, Jr., Petitioners, versus Commission on
Elections, Ronald Allan Kelley Poe (a.k.a. "Fernando Poe, Jr.,) and Victorino X. Fornier, Respondents," and G. R. No. 161634,
entitled "Zoilo Antonio Velez, Petitioner, versus Ronald Allan Kelley Poe, a.k.a. Fernando Poe, Jr., Respondent," for want of
jurisdiction.
2. G. R. No. 161824, entitled “Victorino X. Fornier, Petitioner, versus Hon. Commission on Elections and Ronald Allan Kelley
Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr.,” for failure to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Commission on
Elections in dismissing the petition in SPA No. 04-003.
No Costs.
SO ORDERED.

ARTICLE IX – CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

SECTION 6 AND 7
EN BANC

G.R. No. 83896 February 22, 1991

CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, petitioner,

vs.
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, respondent.

G.R. No. 83815 February 22, 1991

ANTI-GRAFT LEAGUE OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. and CRISPIN T. REYES, petitioners,
vs.
PHILIP ELLA C. JUICO, as Secretary of Agrarian Reform; CARLOS DOMINGUEZ, as Secretary of Agriculture;
LOURDES QUISUMBING, as Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports; FULGENCIO FACTORAN, JR., as Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources; VICENTE V. JAYME, as Secretary of Finance; SEDFREY ORDOÑEZ, as Secretary of
Justice; FRANKLIN N. DRILON, as Secretary of Labor and Employment; LUIS SANTOS, as Secretary of Local
Government; FIDEL V. RAMOS, as Secretary of National Defense; TEODORO F. BENIGNO, as Press Secretary; JUANITO
FERRER, as Secretary of Public Works and Highways; ANTONIO ARRIZABAL, as Secretary of Science and Technology;
JOSE CONCEPCION, as Secretary of Trade and Industry; JOSE ANTONIO GONZALEZ, as Secretary of Tourism;
ALFREDO R.A. BENGZON, as Secretary of Health; REINERIO D. REYES, as Secretary of Transportation and
Communication; GUILLERMO CARAGUE, as Commissioner of the Budget; and SOLITA MONSOD, as Head of the
National Economic Development Authority, respondents.

Ignacio P. Lacsina, Luis R. Mauricio, Antonio R. Quintos and Juan T. David for petitioners in 83896.

Antonio P. Coronel for petitioners in 83815.

FERNAN, C.J.:p

These two (2) petitions were consolidated per resolution dated August 9, 1988 1 and are being resolved jointly as both seek a
declaration of the unconstitutionality of Executive Order No. 284 issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on July 25, 1987. The
pertinent provisions of the assailed Executive Order are:

Sec. 1. Even if allowed by law or by the ordinary functions of his position, a member of the Cabinet, undersecretary
or assistant secretary or other appointive officials of the Executive Department may, in addition to his primary
position, hold not more than two positions in the government and government corporations and receive the
corresponding compensation therefor; Provided, that this limitation shall not apply to ad hoc bodies or committees,
or to boards, councils or bodies of which the President is the Chairman.

Sec. 2. If a member of the cabinet, undersecretary or assistant secretary or other appointive official of the Executive
Department holds more positions than what is allowed in Section 1 hereof, they (sic) must relinquish the excess
position in favor of the subordinate official who is next in rank, but in no case shall any official hold more than two
positions other than his primary position.

Sec. 3. In order to fully protect the interest of the government in government-owned or controlled corporations, at
least one-third (1/3) of the members of the boards of such corporation should either be a secretary, or
undersecretary, or assistant secretary.

Petitioners maintain that this Executive Order which, in effect, allows members of the Cabinet, their undersecretaries and assistant
secretaries to hold other government offices or positions in addition to their primary positions, albeit subject to the limitation therein
imposed, runs counter to Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, 2 which provides as follows:

Sec. 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless
otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not,
during said tenure, directly or indirectly practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially
interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.

It is alleged that the above-quoted Section 13, Article VII prohibits public respondents, as members of the Cabinet, along with the
other public officials enumerated in the list attached to the petitions as Annex "C" in G.R. No.
83815 3 and as Annex "B" in G.R. No. 83896 4 from holding any other office or employment during their tenure. In addition to seeking
a declaration of the unconstitutionality of Executive Order No. 284, petitioner Anti-Graft League of the Philippines further seeks in
G.R. No. 83815 the issuance of the extraordinary writs of prohibition andmandamus, as well as a temporary restraining order directing
public respondents therein to cease and desist from holding, in addition to their primary positions, dual or multiple positions other than
those authorized by the 1987 Constitution and from receiving any salaries, allowances, per diems and other forms of privileges and the
like appurtenant to their questioned positions, and compelling public respondents to return, reimburse or refund any and all amounts or
benefits that they may have received from such positions.
Specifically, petitioner Anti-Graft League of the Philippines charges that notwithstanding the aforequoted "absolute and self-
executing" provision of the 1987 Constitution, then Secretary of Justice Sedfrey Ordoñez, construing Section 13, Article VII in
relation to Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B, rendered on July 23, 1987 Opinion No. 73, series of 1987, 5 declaring that Cabinet
members, their deputies (undersecretaries) and assistant secretaries may hold other public office, including membership in the boards
of government corporations: (a) when directly provided for in the Constitution as in the case of the Secretary of Justice who is made
an ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council under Section 8, paragraph 1, Article VIII; or (b) if allowed by law; or (c) if
allowed by the primary functions of their respective positions; and that on the basis of this Opinion, the President of the Philippines,
on July 25, 1987 or two (2) days before Congress convened on July 27, 1987: promulgated Executive Order No. 284. 6

Petitioner Anti-Graft League of the Philippines objects to both DOJ Opinion No. 73 and Executive Order No. 284 as they allegedly
"lumped together" Section 13, Article VII and the general provision in another article, Section 7, par. (2), Article I-XB. This "strained
linkage" between the two provisions, each addressed to a distinct and separate group of public officers –– one, the President and her
official family, and the other, public servants in general –– allegedly "abolished the clearly separate, higher, exclusive, and mandatory
constitutional rank assigned to the prohibition against multiple jobs for the President, the Vice-President, the members of the Cabinet,
and their deputies and subalterns, who are the leaders of government expected to lead by example." 7 Article IX-B, Section 7, par.
(2) 8 provides:

Sec. 7. . . . . .

Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any
other office or employment in the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

The Solicitor General counters that Department of Justice DOJ Opinion No. 73, series of 1987, as further elucidated and clarified by
DOJ Opinion No. 129, series of 1987 9 and DOJ Opinion No. 155, series of 1988, 10being the first official construction and
interpretation by the Secretary of Justice of Section 13, Article VII and par. (2) of Section 7, Article I-XB of the Constitution,
involving the same subject of appointments or designations of an appointive executive official to positions other than his primary
position, is "reasonably valid and constitutionally firm," and that Executive Order No. 284, promulgated pursuant to DOJ Opinion No.
73, series of 1987 is consequently constitutional. It is worth noting that DOJ Opinion No. 129, series of 1987 and DOJ Opinion No.
155, series of 1988 construed the limitation imposed by E.O. No. 284 as not applying to ex-officio positions or to positions which,
although not so designated as ex-officio are allowed by the primary functions of the public official, but only to the holding of multiple
positions which are not related to or necessarily included in the position of the public official concerned (disparate positions).

In sum, the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 284 is being challenged by petitioners on the principal submission that it adds
exceptions to Section 13, Article VII other than those provided in the Constitution. According to petitioners, by virtue of the phrase
"unless otherwise provided in this Constitution," the only exceptions against holding any other office or employment in Government
are those provided in the Constitution, namely: (1) The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet under Section 3,
par. (2), Article VII thereof; and (2) the Secretary of Justice is an ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of
Section 8 (1), Article VIII.

Petitioners further argue that the exception to the prohibition in Section 7, par. (2), Article I-XB on the Civil Service Commission
applies to officers and employees of the Civil Service in general and that said exceptions do not apply and cannot be extended to
Section 13, Article VII which applies specifically to the President, Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet and their deputies or
assistants.

There is no dispute that the prohibition against the President, Vice-President, the members of the Cabinet and their deputies or
assistants from holding dual or multiple positions in the Government admits of certain exceptions. The disagreement between
petitioners and public respondents lies on the constitutional basis of the exception. Petitioners insist that because of the phrase "unless
otherwise provided in this Constitution" used in Section 13 of Article VII, the exception must be expressly provided in the
Constitution, as in the case of the Vice-President being allowed to become a Member of the Cabinet under the second paragraph of
Section 3, Article VII or the Secretary of Justice being designated an ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council under Article
VIII, Sec. 8 (1). Public respondents, on the other hand, maintain that the phrase "unless otherwise provided in the Constitution" in
Section 13, Article VII makes reference to Section 7, par. (2), Article I-XB insofar as the appointive officials mentioned therein are
concerned.

The threshold question therefore is: does the prohibition in Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution insofar as Cabinet
members, their deputies or assistants are concerned admit of the broad exceptions made for appointive officials in general under
Section 7, par. (2), Article I-XB which, for easy reference is quoted anew, thus: "Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary
functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporation or their subsidiaries."
We rule in the negative.

A foolproof yardstick in constitutional construction is the intention underlying the provision under consideration. Thus, it has been
held that the Court in construing a Constitution should bear in mind the object sought to be accomplished by its adoption, and the
evils, if any, sought to be prevented or remedied. A doubtful provision will be examined in the light of the history of the times, and the
condition and circumstances under which the Constitution was framed. The object is to ascertain the reason which induced the framers
of the Constitution to enact the particular provision and the purpose sought to be accomplished thereby, in order to construe the whole
as to make the words consonant to that reason and calculated to effect that purpose. 11

The practice of designating members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants as members of the governing bodies or boards of
various government agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned and controlled corporations, became prevalent
during the time legislative powers in this country were exercised by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos pursuant to his martial law
authority. There was a proliferation of newly-created agencies, instrumentalities and government-owned and controlled corporations
created by presidential decrees and other modes of presidential issuances where Cabinet members, their deputies or assistants were
designated to head or sit as members of the board with the corresponding salaries, emoluments, per diems, allowances and other
perquisites of office. Most of these instrumentalities have remained up to the present time.

This practice of holding multiple offices or positions in the government soon led to abuses by unscrupulous public officials who took
advantage of this scheme for purposes of self-enrichment. In fact, the holding of multiple offices in government was strongly
denounced on the floor of the Batasang Pambansa. 12 This condemnation came in reaction to the published report of the Commission
on Audit, entitled "1983 Summary Annual Audit Report on: Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations, Self-Governing
Boards and Commissions" which carried as its Figure No. 4 a "Roaster of Membership in Governing Boards of Government-Owned
and Controlled Corporations as of December 31, 1983."

Particularly odious and revolting to the people's sense of propriety and morality in government service were the data contained therein
that Roberto V. Ongpin was a member of the governing boards of twenty-nine (29) governmental agencies, instrumentalities and
corporations; Imelda R. Marcos of twenty-three (23); Cesar E.A. Virata of twenty-two (22); Arturo R. Tanco, Jr. of fifteen (15); Jesus
S. Hipolito and Geronimo Z. Velasco, of fourteen each (14); Cesar C. Zalamea of thirteen (13); Ruben B. Ancheta and Jose A. Roño
of twelve (12) each; Manuel P. Alba, Gilberto O. Teodoro, and Edgardo Tordesillas of eleven (11) each; and Lilia Bautista and
Teodoro Q. Peña of ten (10) each. 13

The blatant betrayal of public trust evolved into one of the serious causes of discontent with the Marcos regime. It was therefore quite
inevitable and in consonance with the overwhelming sentiment of the people that the 1986 Constitutional Commission, convened as it
was after the people successfully unseated former President Marcos, should draft into its proposed Constitution the provisions under
consideration which are envisioned to remedy, if not correct, the evils that flow from the holding of multiple governmental offices and
employment. In fact, as keenly observed by Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz during the deliberations in these cases, one of the strongest
selling points of the 1987 Constitution during the campaign for its ratification was the assurance given by its proponents that the
scandalous practice of Cabinet members holding multiple positions in the government and collecting unconscionably excessive
compensation therefrom would be discontinued.

But what is indeed significant is the fact that although Section 7, Article I-XB already contains a blanket prohibition against the
holding of multiple offices or employment in the government subsuming both elective and appointive public officials, the
Constitutional Commission should see it fit to formulate another provision, Sec. 13, Article VII, specifically prohibiting the President,
Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants from holding any other office or employment during their
tenure, unless otherwise provided in the Constitution itself.

Evidently, from this move as well as in the different phraseologies of the constitutional provisions in question, the intent of the
framers of the Constitution was to impose a stricter prohibition on the President and his official family in so far as holding other
offices or employment in the government or elsewhere is concerned.

Moreover, such intent is underscored by a comparison of Section 13, Article VII with other provisions of the Constitution on the
disqualifications of certain public officials or employees from holding other offices or employment. Under Section 13, Article VI,
"(N)o Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in the Government . . .". Under
Section 5(4), Article XVI, "(N)o member of the armed forces in the active service shall, at any time, be appointed in any capacity to a
civilian position in the Government,including government-owned or controlled corporations or any of their subsidiaries." Even Section
7 (2), Article IX-B, relied upon by respondents provides "(U)nless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his
position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government."

It is quite notable that in all these provisions on disqualifications to hold other office or employment, the prohibition pertains to an
office or employment in the government and government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. In striking contrast is
the wording of Section 13, Article VII which states that "(T)he President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their
deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their
tenure." In the latter provision, the disqualification is absolute, not being qualified by the phrase "in the Government." The prohibition
imposed on the President and his official family is therefore all-embracing and covers both public and private office or employment.

Going further into Section 13, Article VII, the second sentence provides: "They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly,
practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or
special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries." These sweeping, all-embracing prohibitions imposed on the President and his official
family, which prohibitions are not similarly imposed on other public officials or employees such as the Members of Congress,
members of the civil service in general and members of the armed forces, are proof of the intent of the 1987 Constitution to treat the
President and his official family as a class by itself and to impose upon said class stricter prohibitions.

Such intent of the 1986 Constitutional Commission to be stricter with the President and his official family was also succinctly
articulated by Commissioner Vicente Foz after Commissioner Regalado Maambong noted during the floor deliberations and debate
that there was no symmetry between the Civil Service prohibitions, originally found in the General Provisions and the anticipated
report on the Executive Department. Commissioner Foz Commented, "We actually have to be stricter with the President and the
members of the Cabinet because they exercise more powers and, therefore, more cheeks and restraints on them are called for because
there is more possibility of abuse in their case." 14

Thus, while all other appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to hold other office or employment in the government during
their tenure when such is allowed by law or by the primary functions of their positions, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and
assistants may do so only when expressly authorized by the Constitution itself. In other words, Section 7, Article I-XB is meant to lay
down the general rule applicable to all elective and appointive public officials and employees, while Section 13, Article VII is meant
to be the exception applicable only to the President, the Vice- President, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants.

This being the case, the qualifying phrase "unless otherwise provided in this Constitution" in Section 13, Article VII cannot possibly
refer to the broad exceptions provided under Section 7, Article I-XB of the 1987 Constitution. To construe said qualifying phrase as
respondents would have us do, would render nugatory and meaningless the manifest intent and purpose of the framers of the
Constitution to impose a stricter prohibition on the President, Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants
with respect to holding other offices or employment in the government during their tenure. Respondents' interpretation that Section 13
of Article VII admits of the exceptions found in Section 7, par. (2) of Article IX-B would obliterate the distinction so carefully set by
the framers of the Constitution as to when the high-ranking officials of the Executive Branch from the President to Assistant
Secretary, on the one hand, and the generality of civil servants from the rank immediately below Assistant Secretary downwards, on
the other, may hold any other office or position in the government during their tenure.

Moreover, respondents' reading of the provisions in question would render certain parts of the Constitution inoperative. This
observation applies particularly to the Vice-President who, under Section 13 of Article VII is allowed to hold other office or
employment when so authorized by the Constitution, but who as an elective public official under Sec. 7, par. (1) of Article I-XB is
absolutely ineligible "for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure." Surely, to say
that the phrase "unless otherwise provided in this Constitution" found in Section 13, Article VII has reference to Section 7, par. (1) of
Article I-XB would render meaningless the specific provisions of the Constitution authorizing the Vice-President to become a member
of the Cabinet, 15 and to act as President without relinquishing the Vice-Presidency where the President shall not nave been chosen or
fails to qualify. 16 Such absurd consequence can be avoided only by interpreting the two provisions under consideration as one, i.e.,
Section 7, par. (1) of Article I-XB providing the general rule and the other, i.e., Section 13, Article VII as constituting the exception
thereto. In the same manner must Section 7, par. (2) of Article I-XB be construed vis-a-vis Section 13, Article VII.

It is a well-established rule in Constitutional construction that no one provision of the Constitution is to be separated from all the
others, to be considered alone, but that all the provisions bearing upon a particular subject are to be brought into view and to be so
interpreted as to effectuate the great purposes of the instrument. 17Sections bearing on a particular subject should be considered and
interpreted together as to effectuate the whole purpose of the Constitution 18 and one section is not to be allowed to defeat another, if
by any reasonable construction, the two can be made to stand together. 19

In other words, the court must harmonize them, if practicable, and must lean in favor of a construction which will render every word
operative, rather than one which may make the words idle and nugatory. 20

Since the evident purpose of the framers of the 1987 Constitution is to impose a stricter prohibition on the President, Vice-President,
members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants with respect to holding multiple offices or employment in the government during
their tenure, the exception to this prohibition must be read with equal severity. On its face, the language of Section 13, Article VII is
prohibitory so that it must be understood as intended to be a positive and unequivocal negation of the privilege of holding multiple
government offices or employment. Verily, wherever the language used in the constitution is prohibitory, it is to be understood as
intended to be a positive and unequivocal negation. 21 The phrase "unless otherwise provided in this Constitution" must be given a
literal interpretation to refer only to those particular instances cited in the Constitution itself, to wit: the Vice-President being
appointed as a member of the Cabinet under Section 3, par. (2), Article VII; or acting as President in those instances provided under
Section 7, pars. (2) and (3), Article VII; and, the Secretary of Justice being ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue
of Section 8 (1), Article VIII.

The prohibition against holding dual or multiple offices or employment under Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution must not,
however, be construed as applying to posts occupied by the Executive officials specified therein without additional compensation in
an ex-officio capacity as provided by law and as required 22 by the primary functions of said officials' office. The reason is that these
posts do no comprise "any other office" within the contemplation of the constitutional prohibition but are properly an imposition of
additional duties and functions on said officials. 23 To characterize these posts otherwise would lead to absurd consequences, among
which are: The President of the Philippines cannot chair the National Security Council reorganized under Executive Order No. 115
(December 24, 1986). Neither can the Vice-President, the Executive Secretary, and the Secretaries of National Defense, Justice, Labor
and Employment and Local Government sit in this Council, which would then have no reason to exist for lack of a chairperson and
members. The respective undersecretaries and assistant secretaries, would also be prohibited.

The Secretary of Labor and Employment cannot chair the Board of Trustees of the National Manpower and Youth Council (NMYC)
or the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), both of which are attached to his department for policy coordination
and guidance. Neither can his Undersecretaries and Assistant Secretaries chair these agencies.

The Secretaries of Finance and Budget cannot sit in the Monetary

Board. 24 Neither can their respective undersecretaries and assistant secretaries. The Central Bank Governor would then be assisted by
lower ranking employees in providing policy direction in the areas of money, banking and credit. 25

Indeed, the framers of our Constitution could not have intended such absurd consequences. A Constitution, viewed as a continuously
operative charter of government, is not to be interpreted as demanding the impossible or the impracticable; and unreasonable or absurd
consequences, if possible, should be avoided. 26

To reiterate, the prohibition under Section 13, Article VII is not to be interpreted as covering positions held without additional
compensation in ex-officio capacities as provided by law and as required by the primary functions of the concerned official's office.
The term ex-officio means "from office; by virtue of office." It refers to an "authority derived from official character merely, not
expressly conferred upon the individual character, but rather annexed to the official position." Ex-officio likewise denotes an "act done
in an official character, or as a consequence of office, and without any other appointment or authority than that conferred by the
office." 27 An ex-officio member of a board is one who is a member by virtue of his title to a certain office, and without further warrant
or appointment.28 To illustrate, by express provision of law, the Secretary of Transportation and Communications is the ex-
officioChairman of the Board of the Philippine Ports Authority, 29 and the Light Rail Transit Authority. 30

The Court had occasion to explain the meaning of an ex-officio position in Rafael vs. Embroidery and Apparel Control and Inspection
Board, 31 thus: "An examination of section 2 of the questioned statute (R.A. 3137) reveals that for the chairman and members of the
Board to qualify they need only be designated by the respective department heads. With the exception of the representative from the
private sector, they sit ex-officio. In order to be designated they must already be holding positions in the offices mentioned in the law.
Thus, for instance, one who does not hold a previous appointment in the Bureau of Customs, cannot, under the act, be designated a
representative from that office. The same is true with respect to the representatives from the other offices. No new appointments are
necessary. This is as it should be, because the representatives so designated merely perform duties in the Board in addition to those
already performed under their original appointments." 32

The term "primary" used to describe "functions" refers to the order of importance and thus means chief or principal function. The term
is not restricted to the singular but may refer to the plural. 33 The additional duties must not only be closely related to, but must be
required by the official's primary functions. Examples of designations to positions by virtue of one's primary functions are the
Secretaries of Finance and Budget sitting as members of the Monetary Board, and the Secretary of Transportation and
Communications acting as Chairman of the Maritime Industry Authority 34 and the Civil Aeronautics Board.

If the functions required to be performed are merely incidental, remotely related, inconsistent, incompatible, or otherwise alien to the
primary function of a cabinet official, such additional functions would fall under the purview of "any other office" prohibited by the
Constitution. An example would be the Press Undersecretary sitting as a member of the Board of the Philippine Amusement and
Gaming Corporation. The same rule applies to such positions which confer on the cabinet official management functions and/or
monetary compensation, such as but not limited to chairmanships or directorships in government-owned or controlled corporations
and their subsidiaries.

Mandating additional duties and functions to the President, Vice-President, Cabinet Members, their deputies or assistants which are
not inconsistent with those already prescribed by their offices or appointments by virtue of their special knowledge, expertise and skill
in their respective executive offices is a practice long-recognized in many jurisdictions. It is a practice justified by the demands of
efficiency, policy direction, continuity and coordination among the different offices in the Executive Branch in the discharge of its
multifarious tasks of executing and implementing laws affecting national interest and general welfare and delivering basic services to
the people. It is consistent with the power vested on the President and his alter egos, the Cabinet members, to have control of all the
executive departments, bureaus and offices and to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. 35 Without these additional duties and
functions being assigned to the President and his official family to sit in the governing bodies or boards of governmental agencies or
instrumentalities in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law and as required by their primary functions, they would be supervision,
thereby deprived of the means for control and resulting in an unwieldy and confused bureaucracy.

It bears repeating though that in order that such additional duties or functions may not transgress the prohibition embodied in Section
13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, such additional duties or functions must be required by the primary functions of the official
concerned, who is to perform the same in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law, without receiving any additional compensation
therefor.

The ex-officio position being actually and in legal contemplation part of the principal office, it follows that the official concerned has
no right to receive additional compensation for his services in the said position. The reason is that these services are already paid for
and covered by the compensation attached to his principal office. It should be obvious that if, say, the Secretary of Finance attends a
meeting of the Monetary Board as an ex-officio member thereof, he is actually and in legal contemplation performing the primary
function of his principal office in defining policy in monetary and banking matters, which come under the jurisdiction of his
department. For such attendance, therefore, he is not entitled to collect any extra compensation, whether it be in the form of a per them
or an honorarium or an allowance, or some other such euphemism. By whatever name it is designated, such additional compensation
is prohibited by the Constitution.

It is interesting to note that during the floor deliberations on the proposal of Commissioner Christian Monsod to add to Section 7, par.
(2), Article IX-B, originally found as Section 3 of the General Provisions, the exception "unless required by the functions of his
position," 36 express reference to certain high-ranking appointive public officials like members of the Cabinet were
made. 37 Responding to a query of Commissioner Blas Ople, Commissioner Monsod pointed out that there are instances when
although not required by current law, membership of certain high-ranking executive officials in other offices and corporations is
necessary by reason of said officials' primary functions. The example given by Commissioner Monsod was the Minister of Trade and
Industry. 38

While this exchange between Commissioners Monsod and Ople may be used as authority for saying that additional functions and
duties flowing from the primary functions of the official may be imposed upon him without offending the constitutional prohibition
under consideration, it cannot, however, be taken as authority for saying that this exception is by virtue of Section 7, par. (2) of Article
I-XB. This colloquy between the two Commissioners took place in the plenary session of September 27, 1986. Under consideration
then was Section 3 of Committee Resolution No. 531 which was the proposed article on General Provisions. 39 At that time, the article
on the Civil Service Commission had been approved on third reading on July 22, 1986, 40 while the article on the Executive
Department, containing the more specific prohibition in Section 13, had also been earlier approved on third reading on August 26,
1986. 41 It was only after the draft Constitution had undergone reformatting and "styling" by the Committee on Style that said Section
3 of the General Provisions became Section 7, par. (2) of Article IX-B and reworded "Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the
primary functions of his position. . . ."

What was clearly being discussed then were general principles which would serve as constitutional guidelines in the absence of
specific constitutional provisions on the matter. What was primarily at issue and approved on that occasion was the adoption of the
qualified and delimited phrase "primary functions" as the basis of an exception to the general rule covering all appointive public
officials. Had the Constitutional Commission intended to dilute the specific prohibition in said Section 13 of Article VII, it could have
re-worded said Section 13 to conform to the wider exceptions provided in then Section 3 of the proposed general Provisions, later
placed as Section 7, par. (2) of Article IX-B on the Civil Service Commission.

That this exception would in the final analysis apply also to the President and his official family is by reason of the legal principles
governing additional functions and duties of public officials rather than by virtue of Section 7, par. 2, Article IX-B At any rate, we
have made it clear that only the additional functions and duties "required," as opposed to "allowed," by the primary functions may be
considered as not constituting "any other office."

While it is permissible in this jurisdiction to consult the debates and proceedings of the constitutional convention in order to arrive at
the reason and purpose of the resulting Constitution, resort thereto may be had only when other guides fail 42 as said proceedings are
powerless to vary the terms of the Constitution when the meaning is clear. Debates in the constitutional convention "are of value as
showing the views of the individual members, and as indicating the reasons for their votes, but they give us no light as to the views of
the large majority who did not talk, much less of the mass of our fellow citizens whose votes at the polls gave that instrument the force
of fundamental law. We think it safer to construe the constitution from what appears upon its face." 43 The proper interpretation
therefore depends more on how it was understood by the people adopting it than in the framers's understanding thereof. 44

It being clear, as it was in fact one of its best selling points, that the 1987 Constitution seeks to prohibit the President, Vice-President,
members of the Cabinet, their deputies or assistants from holding during their tenure multiple offices or employment in the
government, except in those cases specified in the Constitution itself and as above clarified with respect to posts held without
additional compensation in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law and as required by the primary functions of their office, the
citation of Cabinet members (then called Ministers) as examples during the debate and deliberation on the general rule laid down for
all appointive officials should be considered as mere personal opinions which cannot override the constitution's manifest intent and the
people' understanding thereof.

In the light of the construction given to Section 13, Article VII in relation to Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution,
Executive Order No. 284 dated July 23, 1987 is unconstitutional. Ostensibly restricting the number of positions that Cabinet members,
undersecretaries or assistant secretaries may hold in addition to their primary position to not more than two (2) positions in the
government and government corporations, Executive Order No. 284 actually allows them to hold multiple offices or employment in
direct contravention of the express mandate of Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting them from doing so, unless
otherwise provided in the 1987 Constitution itself.

The Court is alerted by respondents to the impractical consequences that will result from a strict application of the prohibition
mandated under Section 13, Article VII on the operations of the Government, considering that Cabinet members would be stripped of
their offices held in an ex-officio capacity, by reason of their primary positions or by virtue of legislation. As earlier clarified in this
decision, ex-officio posts held by the executive official concerned without additional compensation as provided by law and as required
by the primary functions of his office do not fall under the definition of "any other office" within the contemplation of the
constitutional prohibition. With respect to other offices or employment held by virtue of legislation, including chairmanships or
directorships in government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, suffice it to say that the feared impractical
consequences are more apparent than real. Being head of an executive department is no mean job. It is more than a full-time job,
requiring full attention, specialized knowledge, skills and expertise. If maximum benefits are to be derived from a department head's
ability and expertise, he should be allowed to attend to his duties and responsibilities without the distraction of other governmental
offices or employment. He should be precluded from dissipating his efforts, attention and energy among too many positions of
responsibility, which may result in haphazardness and inefficiency. Surely the advantages to be derived from this concentration of
attention, knowledge and expertise, particularly at this stage of our national and economic development, far outweigh the benefits, if
any, that may be gained from a department head spreading himself too thin and taking in more than what he can handle.

Finding Executive Order No. 284 to be constitutionally infirm, the court hereby orders respondents Secretary of Environment and
Natural Resources Fulgencio Factoran, Jr., Secretary of Local Government 45 Luis Santos, Secretary of National Defense Fidel V.
Ramos, Secretary of Health Alfredo R.A. Bengzon and Secretary of the Budget Guillermo Carague to immediately relinquish their
other offices or employment, as herein defined, in the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries. With respect to the other named respondents, the petitions have become moot and academic as they are no longer
occupying the positions complained of.

During their tenure in the questioned positions, respondents may be considered de facto officers and as such entitled to emoluments
for actual services rendered. 46 It has been held that "in cases where there is no de jure,officer, a de facto officer, who, in good faith
has had possession of the office and has discharged the duties pertaining thereto, is legally entitled to the emoluments of the office,
and may in an appropriate action recover the salary, fees and other compensations attached to the office. This doctrine is, undoubtedly,
supported on equitable grounds since it seems unjust that the public should benefit by the services of an officer de facto and then be
freed from all liability to pay any one for such services. 47 Any per diem, allowances or other emoluments received by the respondents
by virtue of actual services rendered in the questioned positions may therefore be retained by them.

WHEREFORE, subject to the qualification above-stated, the petitions are GRANTED. Executive Order No. 284 is hereby declared
null and void and is accordingly set aside.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Medialdea, Regalado and Davide, Jr.,
JJ., concur.

Sarmiento and Griño-Aquino, JJ., took no part.

EN BANC

G.R. No. 85468 September 7, 1989

QUINTIN S. DOROMAL, petitioner,

vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN, OMBUDSMAN AND SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, respondents.
GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:

Brought up for review before this Court is the order dated August 19, 1988 of the Sandiganbayan denying petitioner's motion to quash
the information against him in Criminal Case No. 12893, entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Quintin S. Doromal," and the
Sandiganbayan's order suspending him from office during the pendency of the case.

In October 1987, Special Prosecution Officer II, Dionisio A. Caoili, conducted a preliminary investigation of the charge against the
petitioner, Quintin S. Doromal, a former Commissioner of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), for- violation
of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), Sec. 3(h), in connection with his shareholdings and position as president and
director of the Doromal International Trading Corporation (DITC) which submitted bids to supply P61 million worth of electronic,
electrical, automotive, mechanical and airconditioning equipment to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (or DECS) and
the National Manpower and Youth Council (or NMYC).

On January 25,1988, with the approval of Special Prosecutor Raul Gonzales, Caoili filed in the Sandiganbayan an information against
the petitioner (Criminal Case No. 12766) alleging :

That in or about the period from April 28, 19866 to October 16, 1987, in Metro Manila, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a public officer, being then Commissioner of the
Presidential Commission on Good Government, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully have direct or indirect
financial interest in the Doromal International Trading Corporation, an entity which transacted or entered into a
business transaction or contract with the Department of Education, Culture and Sports and the National Manpower
and Youth Council, both agencies of the government which business, contracts or transactions he is prohibited by
law and the constitution from having any interest. (pp. 246-247, Rollo; Emphasis supplied.)

The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in this Court questioning the jurisdiction of the "Tanodbayan" to file the
information without the approval of the Ombudsman after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution (G.R. No. 81766, entitled "Doromal
vs. Sandiganbayan").

On June 30, 1988, this Court annulled the information in accordance with its decision in the consolidated cases ofZaldivar vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 79690-707 and Zaldivar vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 80578, April 27, 1988 (160 SCRA 843), where it ruled
that:

... the incumbent Tanodbayan (called Special Prosecutor under the 1987 Constitution and who is supposed to retain
powers and duties NOT GIVEN to the Ombudsman) is clearly without authority to conduct preliminary
investigations and to direct the filing of criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan, except upon orders of the
Ombudsman. This right to do so was lost effective February 2, 1 987. From that time, he has been divested of such
authority.

Upon the annulment of the information against the petitioner, the Special Prosecutor sought clearance from the Ombudsman to refile
it.

In a Memorandum dated July 8,1988, the Ombudsman, Honorable Conrado Vasquez, granted clearance but advised that "some
changes be made in the information previously filed." (p. 107, Rollo.)

Complying with that Memorandum, a new information, duly approved by the Ombudsman, was filed in the Sandiganbayan (Criminal
Case No. 12893), alleging that:

..., the above-named accused [Doromal] a public officer, being then a Commissioner of the Presidential Commission
on Good Government, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully, participate in a business through the Doromal
International Trading Corporation, a family corporation of which he is the President, and which company
participated in the biddings conducted by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports and the National
Manpower & Youth Council, which act or participation is prohibited by law and the constitution. (p. 68, Rollo;
Emphasis supplied.)

On July 25, 1988, petitioner filed a "Motion to Quash" the information for being:

(a) invalid because there had been no preliminary investigation; and

 (b) defective because the facts alleged do not constitute the offense charged (Annex C).

The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash in its orders dated July 25,1988 and August 19,1988 (Annexes D, N and 0, pp. 81,173
& 179, Rollo).

On August 22, 1988, the Special Prosecutor filed a "Motion to Suspend Accused Pendente Lite" pursuant to Section 13 of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019). Over the petitioner's objection (because the President had earlier approved his
application for indefinite leave of absence as PCGG commissioner "effective immediately and until final decision of the courts in your
case" [Annex S-1, p. 189, Rollo]), the Sandiganbayan on September 5, 1988 ordered his suspension pendente lite from his position as
PCGG Commissioner and from any other office he may be holding (Annex T). His motion for reconsideration of that order was also
denied by the Court (Annex Y). Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition alleging that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its
discretion: (1) in denying the petitioner's motion to quash the information in Criminal Case No. 12893; and, (2) in suspending the
petitioner from office despite the President's having previously approved his indefinite leave of absence " until final decision" in this
case.

The petitioner contends that as the preliminary investigation that was conducted prior to the filing of the original information in
Criminal Case No. 12766 was nullified by this Court, another preliminary investigation should have been conducted before the new
information in Criminal Case No. 12893 was filed against him. The denial of his right to such investigation allegedly violates his right
to due process and constitutes a ground to quash the information.

On the other hand, the public respondent argues that another preliminary investigation is unnecessary because both old and new
informations involve the same subject matter a violation of Section 3 (H) of R.A. No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
in relation to Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. Moreover, the petitioner allegedly waived the second preliminary
investigation by his failure to comply with the Court's Order dated August 12, 1988 directing him to submit a statement of new or
additional facts, duly supported by photo copies of documents which he would present should a new preliminary investigation be
ordered (Annex H, p. 94, Rollo).

The petition is meritorious. A new preliminary investigation of the charge against the petitioner is in order not only because the first
was a nullity (a dead limb on the judicial tree which should be lopped off and wholly disregarded"-Anuran vs. Aquino, 38 Phil. 29)
but also because the accused demands it as his right. Moreover, the charge against him had been changed, as directed by the
Ombudsman.

Thus, while the first information in Criminal Case No. 12766 charge that the DITC-

entered into a business transaction or contract with the Department of Education, Culture and Sports and the
National Manpower and Youth Council, ... which business, contracts or transactions he [petitioner] is prohibited by
law and the constitution from having any interest. (P. 70, Rollo.)

the new information in Criminal Case No. 12883 alleges that the petitioner:

unlawfully participate[d] in a business through the Doromal International Trading Corporation, a family corporation
of which he is the President, and which company participated in the biddings conducted by the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports and the National Manpower & Youth Council, which act or participation is prohibited
by law and the constitution. (p. 68, Rollo.)

The petitioner's right to a preliminary investigation of the new charge is secured to him by the following provisions of Rule 112 of the
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure:

SEC. 3. Procedure. ... no complaint or information for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court shall be
filed without a preliminary investigation having been first conducted. .....

SEC. 7. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant.- When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant for
an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Court, the complaint or information may be filed by the offended party,
peace officer or fiscal without a preliminary investigation having been first conducted; on the basis of the affidavit
of the offended party or arresting officer or person.

However, before the filing of such complaint or information, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary
investigation by a proper officer in accordance with this Rules ....
 If the case has been filed in court without a preliminary investigation having been first conducted, the accused
may within five (5) days from the time he learns of the filing of the information, ask for a preliminary
investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his favor in the manner prescribed in this Rule.

That right of the accused is "a substantial one." Its denial over his opposition is a "prejudicial error, in that it subjects the accused to
the loss of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" (U.S. vs. Marfori, 35 Phil. 666).

The need to conduct a new preliminary investigation when the defendant demands it and the allegations of the complaint have been
amended, has been more than once affirmed by this Court:

III. (a) ..., the Court finds that since the information for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft Law was filed without
any previous notice to petitioners and due preliminary investigation thereof, and despite the dismissal of the original
charge for falsification as being 'without any factual or legal basis, 'petitioners are entitled to a new preliminary
investigation for the graft charge, with all the rights to which they are entitled under section 1 of Republic Act No.
5180, approved September 8, 1967, as invoked by them anew from respondent court, viz, the submittal of the
testimonies in affidavit form of the complainant and his witnesses duly sworn to before the investigating fiscal, and
the right of accused, through counsel, to cross-examine them and to adduce evidence in their defense. In line with
the settled doctrine as restated in People vs. Abejuela (38 SCRA 324), respondent court shall hold in abeyance all
proceedings in the case before it until after the outcome of such new preliminary investigation. (Luciano vs.
Mariano, 40 SCRA 187, 201; emphasis ours).

The right of the accused not to be brought to trial except when remanded therefor as a result of a preliminary
examination before a committing magistrate, it has been held is a substantial one. Its denial over the objections of
the accused is prejudicial error in that it subjects the accused to the loss of life, liberty or property without due
process of law. (Conde vs. Judge of Court of First Instance of Tayabas, 45 Phil. 173,176.)

The absence of a preliminary investigation if it is not waived may amount to a denial of due process. (San Diego vs.
Hernandez, 24 SCRA 110, 114.)

In this jurisdiction, the preliminary investigation in criminal cases is not a creation of the Constitution;its origin is
statutory and it exists and the right thereto can be invoked when so established and granted by law. (Mariano
Marcos, et al. vs. Roman A. Cruz, 68 Phil. 96; Emphasis supplied.)

The Solicitor General's argument that the right to a preliminary investigation may be waived and was in fact waived by the petitioner,
impliedly admits that the right exists. Since the right belongs to the accused, he alone may waive it. If he demands it, the State may not
withhold it.

However, as the absence of a preliminary investigation is not a ground to quash the complaint or information (Sec. 3, Rule 117, Rules
of Court), the proceedings upon such information in the Sandiganbayan should be held in abeyance and the case should be remanded
to the office of the Ombudsman for him or the Special Prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation. Thus did We rule in Luciano
vs. Mariano, 40 SCRA 187, 201; Ilagan vs. Enrile 139 SCRA 349 and more recently in Sanciangco, Jr. vs. People, 149 SCRA 1, 3-4:

The absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case. Nor do they impair the
validity of the information or otherwise render it defective; but, if there were no preliminary investigations and the
defendants, before entering their plea, invite the attention of the court to their absence, the court, instead of
dismissing the information should conduct such investigation, order the fiscal to conduct it or remand the case to
the inferior court so that the preliminary investigation may be conducted. (See People vs. Gomez, 117 SCRA 72,
77-78; citing People vs. Casiano, 1 SCRA 478). In this case, the Tanodbayan has the duty to conduct the said
investigation.

There is no merit in petitioner's insistence that the information should be quashed because the Special Prosecutor admitted in the
Sandiganbayan that he does not possess any document signed and/or submitted to the DECS by the petitioner after he became a PCGG
Commissioner (p. 49, Rollo). That admission allegedly belies the averment in the information that the petitioner "participated' in the
business of the DITC in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by law from having any interest. (Sec. 3-h, RA No. 3019).

The Sandiganbayan in its order of August 19, 1988 correctly observed that "the presence of a signed document bearing the signature
of accused Doromal as part of the application to bid ... is not a sine qua non" (Annex O, p. 179. Rollo), for, the Ombudsman indicated
in his Memorandum/Clearance to the Special Prosecutor, that the petitioner "can rightfully be charged ...with having participated in a
business which act is absolutely prohibited by Section 13 of Article VII of the Constitution" because "the DITC remained a family
corporation in which Doromal has at least an indirect interest." (pp. 107-108, Rollo).
Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that "the President, Vice-President, the members of the Cabinet and their
deputies or assistants shall not... during (their) tenure, ...directly or indirectly... participate in any business." The constitutional ban is
similar to the prohibition in the Civil Service Law (PD No. 807, Sec. 36, subpar. 24) that "Pursuit of private business ... without the
permission required by Civil Service Rules and Regulations" shall be a ground for disciplinary action against any officer or employee
in the civil service.

On the suspension of the petitioner from office, Section 13 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) provides:

SEC. 13. Suspension and loss of benefits.-Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid
information under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in court, shall
be suspended from office. Should he be convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits
under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he
failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him.

Since the petitioner is an incumbent public official charged in a valid information with an offense punishable under the Constitution
and the laws (RA 3019 and PD 807), the law's command that he "shall be suspended from office"pendente lite must be obeyed. His
approved leave of absence is not a bar to his preventive suspension for, as indicated by the Solicitor General, an approved leave,
whether it be for a fixed or indefinite period, may be cancelled or shortened at will by the incumbent.

Nevertheless, as we held in Layno, Sr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 136 SCRA 536 (1985), a preventive suspension for an indefinite period of
time, such as one that would last until the case against the incumbent official shall have been finally terminated, would (4 outrun the
bounds of reason and result in sheer oppression" and a denial of due process.

In the case of Garcia vs. The Executive Secretary, 6 SCRA 1 (1962), this Court ordered the immediate reinstatement, to his position as
chairman of the National Science Development Board, of a presidential appointee whose preventive suspension had lasted for nearly
seven (7) months. Some members of the Court held that the maximum period of sixty (60) days provided in Section 35 of the Civil
Service Act of 1959 (Republic Act 2260) was applicable to the petitioner. The others believed, however, that period may not apply
strictly to cases of presidential appointees, nevertheless, the preventive suspension shall be limited to a reasonable period. Obviously,
the Court found the petitioner's preventive suspension for seven (7) months to be unreasonable. The Court stated:

To adopt the theory of respondents that an officer appointed by the President, facing administrative charges can be
preventively suspended indefinitely, would be to countenance a situation where the preventive suspension can, in
effect, be the penalty itself without a finding of guilt after due hearing; contrary to the express mandate of the
Constitution (No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as
provided by law. [Art. XII, Sec. 4, Constitution of the Philippines]) and the Civil Service Law (No officer or
employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by law and after due
process). ... In the guise of a preventive suspension, his term of office could be shortened and he could, in effect, be
removed without a finding of a cause duly established after due hearing, in violation of the Constitution. ....

Pursuant to the guarantee of equal protection of the laws in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution, that same ruling was applied
in Deloso vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 86899-903, May 15,1989.

The petitioner herein is no less entitled to similar protection. Since his preventive suspension has exceeded the reasonable maximum
period of ninety (90) days provided in Section 42 of the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines (P.D. 807), it should now be lifted.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is granted. The Sandiganbayan shall immediately remand Criminal Case
No. 12893 to the Office of the Ombudsman for preliminary investigation and shall hold in abeyance the proceedings before it pending
the result of such investigation. The preventive suspension of the petitioner is hereby lifted. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

EN BANC

G.R. No. 147392 March 12, 2004

BENEDICTO ERNESTO R. BITONIO, JR., petitioner,

vs.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT and CELSO D. GANGAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondents.
DECISION

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

The instant petition filed under Rule 64 of the Revised Rules of Court seeks the annulment of the Decision1 of the Commission on
Audit (COA) dated January 30, 2001 denying the petitioner’s motion for the reconsideration of the COA Notices of Disallowance
Nos. 98-008-101 (95) and 98-017-101 (97) dated July 31, 1998 and October 9, 1998, respectively, involving the per diems the
petitioner received from the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA). In order to avoid multiplicity of suits, an Amended
Petition2 dated August 16, 2002 was later filed to include in the resolution of the instant petition Notice of Disallowance No. 98-003-
101 (96) dated July 31, 1998 which was belatedly received by the petitioner on August 13, 2002.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

In 1994, petitioner Benedicto Ernesto R. Bitonio, Jr. was appointed Director IV of the Bureau of Labor Relations in the Department of
Labor and Employment.

In a Letter dated May 11, 1995 addressed to Honorable Rizalino S. Navarro, then Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry,
Acting Secretary Jose S. Brilliantes of the Department of Labor and Employment designated the petitioner to be the DOLE
representative to the Board of Directors of PEZA.3 Such designation was in pursuance to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7916,
otherwise known as the Special Economic Zone Act of 1995, which provides:

Section 11. The Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) Board. – There is hereby created a body corporate to be known
as the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA)…

The Board shall be composed of the Director General as ex officio chairman with eight (8) members as follows: the
Secretaries or their representatives of the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Finance, the Department
of Labor and Employment, the Department of [the] Interior and Local Government, the National Economic and Development
Authority, and theBangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, one (1) representative from the labor sector, and one (1) representative from
the investor/business sector in the ECOZONE.

Members of the Board shall receive a per diem of not less than the amount equivalent to the representation and transportation
allowances of the members of the Board and/or as may be determined by the Department of Budget and
Management: Provided, however, That the per diem collected per month does not exceed the equivalent of four (4) meetings.

As representative of the Secretary of Labor to the PEZA, the petitioner was receiving a per diem for every board meeting he attended
during the years 1995 to 1997.

After a post audit of the PEZA’s disbursement transactions, the COA disallowed the payment of per diems to the petitioner and thus
issued the following:

(a) Notice of Disallowance No. 98-008-101 (95) dated July 31, 1998 for the total sum of P24,500 covering the period of July-
December 1995;

(b) Notice of Disallowance No. 98-003-101 (96) also dated July 31, 1998 for a total amount of P100,000 covering the period
of January 1996 to January 1997;4

(c) Notice of Disallowance No. 98-017-101 (97) dated October 9, 1998 for the total amount of P210,000 covering the period
of February 1997 to January 1998.

The uniform reason for the disallowance was stated in the Notices, as follows:

Cabinet members, their deputies and assistants holding other offices in addition to their primary office and to receive
compensation therefore was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive
Secretary. Disallowance is in pursuance to COA Memorandum No. 97-038 dated September 19, 1997 implementing Senate
Committee Report No. 509.5

On November 24, 1998, the petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration to the COA on the following grounds:
 1. The Supreme Court in its Resolution dated August 2, 1991 on the motion for clarification filed by the Solicitor General
modified its earlier ruling in the Civil Liberties Union case which limits the prohibition to Cabinet Secretaries,
Undersecretaries and their Assistants. Officials given the rank equivalent to a Secretary, Undersecretary or Assistant
Secretary and other appointive officials below the rank of Assistant Secretary are not covered by the prohibition.

2. Section 11 of R.A. No. 7916 provides the legal basis for the movant to receive per diem. Said law was enacted in 1995,
four years after the Civil Liberties Union case became final. In expressly authorizing per diems, Congress should be
conclusively presumed to have been aware of the parameters of the constitutional prohibition as interpreted in the Civil
Liberties Union case.6

On January 30, 2001, the COA rendered the assailed decision denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Hence, this petition.

The issue in this case is whether or not the COA correctly disallowed the per diems received by the petitioner for his attendance in the
PEZA Board of Directors’ meetings as representative of the Secretary of Labor.

We rule in the affirmative.

The COA anchors the disallowance of per diems in the case of Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary7 where the Court declared
Executive Order No. 2848 allowing government officials to hold multiple positions in government, unconstitutional. Thus, Cabinet
Secretaries, Undersecretaries, and their Assistant Secretaries, are prohibited to hold other government offices or positions in addition
to their primary positions and to receive compensation therefor, except in cases where the Constitution expressly provides. The
Court’s ruling was in conformity with Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which reads:

Sec. 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless
otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during their
tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business or be financially interested in any other
contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly
avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.

The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not, during his
tenure, be appointed as members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries,
Undersecretaries, Chairmen, or heads of bureaus or offices, including government-owned or controlled corporations and
subsidiaries.

Pursuant to the Court’s ruling in this case and the Senate Committee Report on the Accountability of Public Officers and
Investigations (Blue Ribbon),9 the COA issued Memorandum No. 97-038 which authorized the issuance of the Notices of
Disallowances for the per diems received by the petitioner. It states:

The Commission received a copy of Senate Committee Report No. 509 urging "the Commission on Audit to immediately
cause the disallowance of any payment of any form of additional compensation or remuneration to cabinet secretaries, their
deputies and assistants, or their representatives in violation of the rule on multiple positions and to effect the refund of any
and all such additional compensation given to and received by the officials concerned, or their representatives, from the time
of the finality of the Supreme Court ruling in Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary to the present." In the Civil
Liberties Union case, the Supreme Court ruled that Cabinet Secretaries, their deputies and assistants may not hold any other
office or employment. It declared Executive Order No. 284 unconstitutional insofar as it allows Cabinet members, their
deputies and assistants to hold other offices in addition to their primary office and to receive compensation therefor. The said
decision became final and executory on August 19, 1991.

In view thereof, all unit heads/auditors/team leaders of the national government agencies and government-owned or
controlled corporations which have effected payment of subject allowances are directed to implement the recommendation
contained in the subject Senate Committee Report by undertaking the following audit action: …10

The petitioner maintains that he is entitled to the payment of per diems, as R.A. No. 7916 specifically and categorically provides for
the payment of a per diem for the attendance of the members of the Board of Directors at board meetings of PEZA. The petitioner
contends that this law is presumed to be valid; unless and until the law is declared unconstitutional, it remains in effect and binding for
all intents and purposes. Neither can this law be rendered nugatory on the basis of a mere memorandum circular – COA Memorandum
No. 97-038 issued by the COA. The petitioner stresses that R.A. No. 7916 is a statute more superior than an administrative directive
and the former cannot just be repealed or amended by the latter.

The petitioner also posits that R.A. No. 7916 was enacted four (4) years after the case of Civil Liberties Union was promulgated. It is,
therefore, assumed that the legislature, before enacting a law, was aware of the prior holdings of the courts. Since the constitutionality
or the validity of R.A. No. 7916 was never challenged, the provision on the payment of per diems remains in force notwithstanding
the Civil Liberties Union case. Nonetheless, the petitioner’s position as Director IV is not included in the enumeration of officials
prohibited to receive additional compensation as clarified in the Resolution of the Court dated August 1, 1991; thus, he is still entitled
to receive the per diems.

The petitioner’s contentions are untenable.

It must be noted that the petitioner’s presence in the PEZA Board meetings is solely by virtue of his capacity as representative of the
Secretary of Labor. As the petitioner himself admitted, there was no separate or special appointment for such position.11 Since the
Secretary of Labor is prohibited from receiving compensation for his additional office or employment, such prohibition likewise
applies to the petitioner who sat in the Board only in behalf of the Secretary of Labor.

The petitioner’s case stands on all fours with the case of Dela Cruz v. Commission on Audit.12 Here, the Court upheld the COA in
disallowing the payment of honoraria and per diems to the officers concerned who sat as members of the Board of Directors of the
National Housing Authority. The officers concerned sat as alternates of their superiors in an ex officio capacity. Citing also the Civil
Liberties Union case, the Court explained thus:

"The ex-officio position being actually and in legal contemplation part of the principal office, it follows that the official
concerned has no right to receive additional compensation for his services in the said position. The reason is that these
services are already paid for and covered by the compensation attached to his principal office. It should be obvious that if,
say, the Secretary of Finance attends a meeting of the Monetary Board as an ex-officio member thereof, he is actually and in
legal contemplation performing the primary function of his principal office in defining policy in monetary banking matters,
which come under the jurisdiction of his department. For such attendance, therefore, he is not entitled to collect any extra
compensation, whether it be in the form of a per diem or anhonorarium or an allowance, or some other such euphemism. By
whatever name it is designated, such additional compensation is prohibited by the Constitution."

Since the Executive Department Secretaries, as ex-officio members of the NHA Board, are prohibited from receiving "extra
(additional) compensation, whether it be in the form of a per diem or an honorarium or an allowance, or some other such
euphemism," it follows that petitioners who sit as their alternates cannot likewise be entitled to receive such compensation. A
contrary rule would give petitioners a better right than their principals.13

Similarly in the case at bar, we cannot allow the petitioner who sat as representative of the Secretary of Labor in the PEZA Board to
have a better right than his principal. As the representative of the Secretary of Labor, the petitioner sat in the Board in the same
capacity as his principal. Whatever laws and rules the member in the Board is covered, so is the representative; and whatever
prohibitions or restrictions the member is subjected, the representative is, likewise, not exempted. Thus, his position as Director IV of
the DOLE which the petitioner claims is not covered by the constitutional prohibition set by the Civil Liberties Union case is of no
moment. The petitioner attended the board meetings by the authority given to him by the Secretary of Labor to sit as his
representative. If it were not for such designation, the petitioner would not have been in the Board at all.

There is also no merit in the allegation that the legislature was certainly aware of the parameters set by the Court when it enacted R.A.
No. 7916, four (4) years after the finality of the Civil Liberties Union case. The payment of per diems was clearly an express grant in
favor of the members of the Board of Directors which the petitioner is entitled to receive.

It is a basic tenet that any legislative enactment must not be repugnant to the highest law of the land which is the Constitution. No law
can render nugatory the Constitution because the Constitution is more superior to a statute.14 If a law happens to infringe upon or
violate the fundamental law, courts of justice may step in to nullify its effectiveness.15 It is the task of the Court to see to it that the law
must conform to the Constitution. In the clarificatory resolution issued by the Court in the Civil Liberties Union case on August 1,
1991, the Court addressed the issue as to the extent of the exercise of legislative prerogative, to wit:

The Solicitor General next asks: "x x x may the Decision then control or otherwise encroach on the exclusive competence of
the legislature to provide funds for a public purpose, in terms of compensation or honoraria under existing laws, where in the
absence of such provision said laws would otherwise meet the terms of the "exception by law?" Again, the question is
anchored on a misperception. It must be stressed that the so-called "exclusive competence of the legislature to provide funds
for a public purpose" or to enact all types of laws, for that matter, is not unlimited. Such competence must be exercised
within the framework of the fundamental law from which the Legislature draws its power and with which the
resulting legislation or statute must conform. When the Court sets aside legislation for being violative of the
Constitution, it is not thereby substituting its wisdom for that of the Legislature or encroaching upon the latter’s
prerogative, but again simply discharging its sacred task of safeguarding and upholding the paramount law.

The framers of R.A. No. 7916 must have realized the flaw in the law which is the reason why the law was later amended by R.A. No.
874816to cure such defect. In particular, Section 11 of R.A. No. 7916 was amended to read:
 SECTION 11. The Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) Board. – There is hereby created a body corporate to be
known as the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) attached to the Department of Trade and Industry. The Board
shall have a director general with the rank of department undersecretary who shall be appointed by the President. The director
general shall be at least forty (40) years of age, of proven probity and integrity, and a degree holder in any of the following
fields: economics, business, public administration, law, management or their equivalent, and with at least ten (10) years
relevant working experience preferably in the field of management or public administration.

The director general shall be assisted by three (3) deputy directors general each for policy and planning, administration and
operations, who shall be appointed by the PEZA Board, upon the recommendation of the director general. The deputy
directors general shall be at least thirty-five (35) years old, with proven probity and integrity and a degree holder in any of the
following fields: economics, business, public administration, law, management or their equivalent.

The Board shall be composed of thirteen (13) members as follows: the Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry
as Chairman, the Director General of the Philippine Economic Zone Authority as Vice-chairman, the undersecretaries of
the Department of Finance, the Department of Labor and Employment, the Department of [the] Interior and Local
Government, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of
Public Works and Highways, the Department of Science and Technology, the Department of Energy, the Deputy Director
General of the National Economic and Development Authority, one (1) representative from the labor sector, and one (1)
representative from the investors/business sector in the ECOZONE. In case of the unavailability of the Secretary of the
Department of Trade and Industry to attend a particular board meeting, the Director General of PEZA shall act as Chairman.17

As can be gleaned from above, the members of the Board of Directors was increased from 8 to 13, specifying therein that it is the
undersecretaries of the different Departments who should sit as board members of the PEZA. The option of designating his
representative to the Board by the different Cabinet Secretaries was deleted. Likewise, the last paragraph as to the payment of per
diems to the members of the Board of Directors was also deleted, considering that such stipulation was clearly in conflict with the
proscription set by the Constitution.

Prescinding from the above, the petitioner is, indeed, not entitled to receive a per diem for his attendance at board meetings during his
tenure as member of the Board of Director of the PEZA.

IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed decision of the COA is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 138965 March 5, 2007

PUBLIC INTEREST CENTER, INC., LAUREANO T. ANGELES and JOCELYN P. CELESTINO, Petitioners,
vs.
MAGDANGAL B. ELMA, as Chief Presidential Legal Counsel and as Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good
Government, and RONALDO ZAMORA, as Executive Secretary, Accused-Appellant.

RESOLUTION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

For consideration is the Omnibus Motion, dated 14 August 2006, where respondent Magdangal B. Elma sought: (1) the
reconsideration of the Decision in the case of Public Interest Center, Inc., et al. v. Magdangal B. Elma, et al. (G.R. No. 138965),
promulgated on 30 June 2006; (2) the clarification of the dispositive part of the Decision; and (3) the elevation of the case to the Court
en banc. The Solicitor General, in behalf of the respondents, filed an Omnibus Motion, dated 11 August 2006, with substantially the
same allegations.

Respondent Elma was appointed as Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) on 30 October 1998.
Thereafter, during his tenure as PCGG Chairman, he was appointed as Chief Presidential Legal Counsel (CPLC). He accepted the
second appointment, but waived any renumeration that he may receive as CPLC. Petitioners sought to have both appointments
declared as unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.

In its Decision, the Court declared that the concurrent appointments of the respondent as PCGG Chairman and CPLC were
unconstitutional. It ruled that the concurrent appointment to these offices is in violation of Section 7, par. 2, Article IX-B of the 1987
Constitution, since these are incompatible offices. The duties of the CPLC include giving independent and impartial legal advice on
the actions of the heads of various executive departments and agencies and reviewing investigations involving heads of executive
departments. Since the actions of the PCGG Chairman, a head of an executive agency, are subject to the review of the CPLC, such
appointments would be incompatible.

The Court also decreed that the strict prohibition under Section 13 Article VII of the 1987 Constitution would not apply to the present
case, since neither the PCGG Chairman nor the CPLC is a secretary, undersecretary, or assistant secretary. However, had the rule
thereunder been applicable to the case, the defect of these two incompatible offices would be made more glaring. The said section
allows the concurrent holding of positions only when the second post is required by the primary functions of the first appointment and
is exercised in an ex-officio capacity. Although respondent Elma waived receiving renumeration for the second appointment, the
primary functions of the PCGG Chairman do not require his appointment as CPLC.

After reviewing the arguments propounded in respondents’ Omnibus Motions, we find that the basic issues that were raised have
already been passed upon. No substantial arguments were presented. Thus, the Court denies the respondents’ motion for
reconsideration.

In response to the respondents’ request for clarification, the Court ruled that respondent Elma’s concurrent appointments as PCGG
Chairman and CPLC are unconstitutional, for being incompatible offices. This ruling does not render both appointments void.
Following the common-law rule on incompatibility of offices, respondent Elma had, in effect, vacated his first office as PCGG
Chairman when he accepted the second office as CPLC.1

There also is no merit in the respondents’ motion to refer the case to the Court en banc. What is in question in the present case is the
constitutionality of respondent Elma’s concurrent appointments, and not the constitutionality of any treaty, law or agreement.2 The
mere application of constitutional provisions does not require the case to be heard and decided en banc. Contrary to the allegations of
the respondent, the decision of the Court in this case does not modify the ruling in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary. It
should also be noted that Section 3 of Supreme Court Circular No. 2-89, dated 7 February 1989 clearly provides that the Court en banc
is not an Appellate Court to which decisions or resolutions of a Division may be appealed.

WHEREFORE, the Court denies the respondents’ motion for reconsideration and for elevation of this case to the Court en banc.

SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 164185

Petitioner,
Present:

QUISUMBING,J., Chairperson,
- versus - YNARES-SANTIAGO,*
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
THE SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION)
and ALEJANDRO A. VILLAPANDO, Promulgated:
Respondents.
July 23, 2008

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:

This petition for certiorari filed by the Office of the Ombudsman through the Office of the Special Prosecutor assails the May
20, 2004 Decision[1] of the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, in Criminal Case No. 27465, granting private respondent Alejandro A.
Villapando’s Demurrer to Evidence[2] and acquitting him of the crime of unlawful appointment under Article 244 [3] of the Revised
Penal Code.

The facts culled from the records are as follows:

During the May 11, 1998 elections, Villapando ran for Municipal Mayor of San Vicente, Palawan. Orlando M. Tiape (now
deceased), a relative of Villapando’s wife, ran for Municipal Mayor of Kitcharao, Agusan del Norte. Villapando won while Tiape
lost. Thereafter, on July 1, 1998, Villapando designated Tiape as Municipal Administrator of the Municipality of San
Vicente,Palawan.[4] A Contract of Consultancy[5] dated February 8, 1999 was executed between the Municipality of San Vicente,
Palawan and Tiape whereby the former employed the services of Tiape as Municipal Administrative and Development Planning
Consultant in the Office of the Municipal Mayor for a period of six months from January 1, 1999 to June 30, 1999 for a monthly
salary ofP26,953.80.

On February 4, 2000, Solomon B. Maagad and Renato M. Fernandez charged Villapando and Tiape for violation of Article
244 of the Revised Penal Code before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon.[6] The complaint was resolved against
Villapando and Tiape and the following Information[7] dated March 19, 2002 charging the two with violation of Article 244 of the
Revised Penal Code was filed with the Sandiganbayan:

xxxx

That on or about 01 July 1998 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in San Vicente,
Palawan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, ALEJANDRO A. VILLAPANDO, a public officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of
San Vicente, Palawan, committing the crime herein charged, in relation to and taking advantage of
his official functions, conspiring and confederating with accused Orlando M. Tiape, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously appoint ORLANDO M. TIAPE as a Municipal
Administrator of San Vicente, Palawan, accused Alejandro A. Villapando knowing fully well that
Orlando Tiape lacks the qualification as he is a losing mayoralty candidate in the Municipality of
Kitcharao, Agusan del Norte during the May 1998 elections, hence is ineligible for appointment to
a public office within one year (1) from the date of the elections, to the damage and prejudice of
the government and of public interest.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[8]

The Information was docketed as Criminal Case No. 27465 and raffled to the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan.

Upon arraignment on September 3, 2002, Villapando pleaded not guilty. Meanwhile, the case against Tiape was dismissed
after the prosecution proved his death which occurred on July 26, 2000.[9]

After the prosecution rested its case, Villapando moved for leave to file a demurrer to evidence. The Sandiganbayan, Fourth
Division denied his motion but gave him five days within which to inform the court in writing whether he will nonetheless submit his
Demurrer to Evidence for resolution without leave of court.[10] Villapando then filed a Manifestation of Intent to File Demurrer to
Evidence,[11] and was given 15 days from receipt to file his Demurrer to Evidence. He filed his Demurrer to Evidence[12] onOctober
28, 2003.

In a Decision dated May 20, 2004, the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division found Villapando’s Demurrer to Evidence
meritorious, as follows:

The Court found the “Demurrer to Evidence” impressed with merit.

Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Article 244. Unlawful appointments.–Any public officer who shall knowingly nominate
or appoint to any public office any person lacking the legal qualifications therefor, shall suffer the
penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos. (underscoring supplied)

A dissection of the above-cited provision [yields] the following elements, to wit:

1. the offender was a public officer;

2. accused nominated or appointed a person to a public office;

3. such person did not have the legal qualifications [therefor;] and,

4. the offender knew that his nominee or appointee did not have the legal qualifications at the time he
made the nomination or appointment.

Afore-cited elements are hereunder discussed.

1. Mayor Villapando was the duly elected Municipal Mayor of San Vicente, Palawan when the alleged
crime was committed.
 2. Accused appointed Orlando Tiape as Municipal Administrator of the Municipality of San
Vicente, Palawan.

3. There appears to be a dispute. This Court is now called upon to determine whether Orlando Tiape, at
the time of [his] designation as Municipal Administrator, was lacking in legal qualification. Stated differently, does
“legal qualification” contemplate the one (1) year prohibition on appointment as provided for in Sec. 6, Art. IX-B of
the Constitution and Sec. 94 (b) of the Local Government Code, mandating that a candidate who lost in any election
shall not, within one year after such election, be appointed to any office in the Government?

The Court answers in the negative.

In ascertaining the legal qualifications of a particular appointee to a public office, “there must be a law
providing for the qualifications of a person to be nominated or appointed” therein. To illuminate further, Justice
Rodolfo Palattao succinctly discussed in his book that the qualification of a public officer to hold a particular
position in the government is provided for by law, which may refer to educational attainment, civil service eligibility
or experience:

As the title suggests, the offender in this article is a public officer who nominates or
appoints a person to a public office. The person nominated or appointed is not qualified and his
lack of qualification is known to the party making the nomination or appointment. The
qualification of a public officer to hold a particular position in the government is provided by
law. The purpose of the law is to ensure that the person appointed is competent to perform the
duties of the office, thereby promoting efficiency in rendering public service.

The qualification to hold public office may refer to educational attainment, civil service
eligibility or experience. For instance, for one to be appointed as judge, he must be a lawyer. So
if the Judicial and Bar Council nominates a person for appointment as judge knowing him to be
not a member of the Philippine Bar, such act constitutes a violation of the law under consideration.

In this case, Orlando Tiape was allegedly appointed to the position of Municipal Administrator. As such,
the law that provides for the legal qualification for the position of municipal administrator is Section 480, Article X
of the Local Government Code, to wit:

“Section 480. Qualifications, Terms, Powers and Duties.–(a) No person shall be

appointed administrator unless he is a citizen of the Philippines, a resident of the local government
unit concerned, of good moral character, a holder of a college degree preferably in public
administration, law, or any other related course from a recognized college or university, and a first
grade civil service eligible or its equivalent. He must have acquired experience in management
and administration work for at least five (5) years in the case of the provincial or city
administrator, and three (3) years in the case of the municipal administrator.

xxx xxx xxx.”

It is noteworthy to mention that the prosecution did not allege much less prove that Mayor Villapando’s
appointee, Orlando Tiape, lacked any of the qualifications imposed by law on the position of Municipal
Administrator. Prosecution’s argument rested on the assertion that since Tiape lost in the May 11, 1998 election, he
necessarily lacked the required legal qualifications.

It bears stressing that temporary prohibition is not synonymous with absence or lack of legal
qualification. A person who possessed the required legal qualifications for a position may be temporarily
disqualified for appointment to a public position by reason of the one year prohibition imposed on losing candidates.
Upon the other hand, one may not be temporarily disqualified for appointment, but could not be appointed as he
lacked any or all of the required legal qualifications imposed by law.

4. Anent the last element, this Court deems it unnecessary to discuss the same.

WHEREFORE, finding the “Demurrer to Evidence” filed by Mayor Villapando with merit, the same is
hereby GRANTED. Mayor Villapando is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged.

SO ORDERED.[13]

Thus, this petition by the Office of the Ombudsman, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, representing the People of
the Philippines.
 Villapando was required by this Court to file his comment to the petition. Despite several notices, however, he failed to do
so and in a Resolution[14] dated June 7, 2006, this Court informed him that he is deemed to have waived the filing of his comment and
the case shall be resolved on the basis of the pleadings submitted by the petitioner.

Petitioner raises the following issues:

I.

WHETHER THE RESPONDENT COURT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING
TO LACK OF OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN INTERPRETING THAT THE “LEGAL
DISQUALIFICATION” IN ARTICLE 244 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ONE
YEAR PROHIBITION IMPOSED ON LOSING CANDIDATES AS ENUNCIATED IN THE CONSTITUTION
AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

II.

WHETHER THE RESPONDENT COURT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING
TO LACK OF OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN GIVING DUE COURSE TO, AND EVENTUALLY
GRANTING, THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE.[15]

Simply, the issue is whether or not the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Petitioner argues that the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction because its interpretation of Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code does not complement the provision on the one-year
prohibition found in the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code, particularly Section 6, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution
which states no candidate who has lost in any election shall, within one year after such election, be appointed to any office in the
government or any government-owned or controlled corporation or in any of their subsidiaries. Section 94(b) of the Local
Government Code of 1991, for its part, states that except for losing candidates in barangay elections, no candidate who lost in any
election shall, within one year after such election, be appointed to any office in the government or any government-owned or
controlled corporation or in any of their subsidiaries. Petitioner argues that the court erred when it ruled that temporary prohibition is
not synonymous with the absence of lack of legal qualification.

The Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division held that the qualifications for a position are provided by law and that it may well be that
one who possesses the required legal qualification for a position may be temporarily disqualified for appointment to a public position
by reason of the one-year prohibition imposed on losing candidates. However, there is no violation of Article 244 of the Revised
Penal Code should a person suffering from temporary disqualification be appointed so long as the appointee possesses all the
qualifications stated in the law.

There is no basis in law or jurisprudence for this interpretation. On the contrary, legal disqualification in Article 244 of the
Revised Penal Code simply means disqualification under the law. Clearly, Section 6, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution and Section
94(b) of the Local Government Code of 1991 prohibits losing candidates within one year after such election to be appointed to any
office in the government or any government-owned or controlled corporations or in any of their subsidiaries.

Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code states:

Art. 244. Unlawful appointments. — Any public officer who shall knowingly nominate or appoint to any
public office any person lacking the legal qualifications therefore, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine
not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

Section 94 of the Local Government Code provides:

SECTION 94. Appointment of Elective and Appointive Local Officials; Candidates Who Lost in
Election. - (a) No elective or appointive local official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity
to any public office or position during his tenure.
 Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no elective or appointive local
official shall hold any other office or employment in the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

(b) Except for losing candidates in barangay elections, no candidate who lost in any election shall, within
one (1) year after such election, be appointed to any office in the government or any government-owned or
controlled corporations or in any of their subsidiaries.

Section 6, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution states:

Section 6. No candidate who has lost in any election shall, within one year after such election, be appointed
to any office in the Government or any Government-owned or controlled corporations or in any of their subsidiaries.

Villapando’s contention and the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division’s interpretation of the term legal disqualification lack
cogency. Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be circumscribed lexically. Legal disqualification cannot be read as excluding
temporary disqualification in order to exempt therefrom the legal prohibitions under Section 6, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution and
Section 94(b) of the Local Government Code of 1991.

Although this Court held in the case of People v. Sandiganbayan[16] that once a court grants the demurrer to evidence, such
order amounts to an acquittal and any further prosecution of the accused would violate the constitutional proscription on double
jeopardy, this Court held in the same case that such ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse of
discretion.

Grave abuse of discretion defies exact definition, but it generally refers to capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary
and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.[17]

In this case, the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, in disregarding basic rules of statutory construction, acted with grave abuse
of discretion. Its interpretation of the term legal disqualification in Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code defies legal cogency. Legal
disqualification cannot be read as excluding temporary disqualification in order to exempt therefrom the legal prohibitions under the
1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code of 1991. We reiterate the legal
maxim ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distingueredebemus. Basic is the rule in statutory construction that where the law does not
distinguish, the courts should not distinguish. There should be no distinction in the application of a law where none is indicated.

Further, the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division denied Villapando’s Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence yet
accommodated Villapando by giving him five days within which to inform it in writing whether he will submit his demurrer to evidence for
resolution without leave of court.

Notably, a judgment rendered with grave abuse of discretion or without due process is void, does not exist in legal
contemplation and, thus, cannot be the source of an acquittal.[18]

The Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division having acted with grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the basic rules of statutory
construction resulting in its decision granting Villapando’s Demurrer to Evidence and acquitting the latter, we can do no less but
declare its decision null and void.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 20, 2004 of the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, in
Criminal Case No. 27465, granting private respondent Alejandro A. Villapando’s Demurrer to Evidence and acquitting him of the
crime of unlawful appointment under Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code is hereby declared NULL and VOID. Let the records of
this case be remanded to the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

EN BANC

G.R. No. 104732 June 22, 1993

ROBERTO A. FLORES, DANIEL Y. FIGUEROA, ROGELIO T. PALO, DOMINGO A. JADLOC, CARLITO T. CRUZ and
MANUEL P. REYES, petitioner,
vs.
HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, Executive Secretary, and RICHARD J. GORDON, respondents.

Isagani M. Jungco, Valeriano S. Peralta, Miguel Famularcano, Jr. and Virgilio E. Acierto for petitioners.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

The constitutionality of Sec. 13, par. (d), of R.A. 7227, 1 otherwise known as the "Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992,"
under which respondent Mayor Richard J. Gordon of Olongapo City was appointed Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), is challenged in this original petition with prayer for prohibition, preliminary injunction
and temporary restraining order "to prevent useless and unnecessary expenditures of public funds by way of salaries and other
operational expenses attached to the office . . . ." 2 Paragraph (d) reads —

(d) Chairman administrator — The President shall appoint a professional manager as administrator of the Subic
Authority with a compensation to be determined by the Board subject to the approval of the Secretary of Budget,
who shall be the ex oficio chairman of the Board and who shall serve as the chief executive officer of the Subic
Authority: Provided, however, That for the first year of its operations from the effectivity of this Act, the mayor of
the City of Olongapo shall be appointed as the chairman and chief executive officer of the Subic
Authority (emphasis supplied).

Petitioners, who claim to be taxpayers, employees of the U.S. Facility at the Subic, Zambales, and officers and members of the
Filipino Civilian Employees Association in U.S. Facilities in the Philippines, maintain that theproviso in par. (d) of Sec. 13 herein-
above quoted in italics infringes on the following constitutional and statutory provisions: (a) Sec. 7, first par., Art. IX-B, of the
Constitution, which states that "[n]o elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public
officer or position during his tenure," 3 because the City Mayor of Olongapo City is an elective official and the subject posts are public
offices; (b) Sec. 16, Art. VII, of the Constitution, which provides that "[t]he President shall . . . . appoint all other officers of the
Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to
appoint", 4since it was Congress through the questioned proviso and not the President who appointed the Mayor to the subject
posts; 5 and, (c) Sec. 261, par. (g), of the Omnibus Election Code, which says:

Sec. 261. Prohibited Acts. — The following shall be guilty of an election offense: . . . (g) Appointment of new
employees, creation of new position, promotion, or giving salary increases. — During the period of forty-five days
before a regular election and thirty days before a special election, (1) any head, official or appointing officer of a
government office, agency or instrumentality, whether national or local, including government-owned or controlled
corporations, who appoints or hires any new employee, whether provisional, temporary or casual, or creates and fills
any new position, except upon prior authority of the Commission. The Commission shall not grant the authority
sought unless it is satisfied that the position to be filled is essential to the proper functioning of the office or agency
concerned, and that the position shall not be filled in a manner that may influence the election. As an exception to
the foregoing provisions, a new employee may be appointed in case of urgent need:Provided, however, That notice
of the appointment shall be given to the Commission within three days from the date of the appointment. Any
appointment or hiring in violation of this provision shall be null and void. (2) Any government official who
promotes, or gives any increase of salary or remuneration or privilege to any government official or employee,
including those in government-owned or controlled corporations . . . .

for the reason that the appointment of respondent Gordon to the subject posts made by respondent Executive Secretary on 3 April
1992 was within the prohibited 45-day period prior to the 11 May 1992 Elections.

The principal question is whether the proviso in Sec. 13, par. (d), of R.A. 7227 which states, "Provided, however,That for the first
year of its operations from the effectivity of this Act, the mayor of the City of Olongapo shall be appointed as the chairman and chief
executive officer of the Subic Authority," violates the constitutional proscription against appointment or designation of elective
officials to other government posts.

In full, Sec. 7 of Art. IX-B of the Constitution provides:

No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position
during his tenure.
 Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any
other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

The section expresses the policy against the concentration of several public positions in one person, so that a public officer or
employee may serve full-time with dedication and thus be efficient in the delivery of public services. It is an affirmation that a public
office is a full-time job. Hence, a public officer or employee, like the head of an executive department described in Civil Liberties
Union v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 83896, and Anti-Graft League of the Philippines, Inc. v. Philip Ella C. Juico, as Secretary of
Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 83815, 6 ". . . . should be allowed to attend to his duties and responsibilities without the distraction of other
governmental duties or employment. He should be precluded from dissipating his efforts, attention and energy among too many
positions of responsibility, which may result in haphazardness and inefficiency . . . ."

Particularly as regards the first paragraph of Sec. 7, "(t)he basic idea really is to prevent a situation where a local elective official will
work for his appointment in an executive position in government, and thus neglect his constituents . . . ." 7

In the case before us, the subject proviso directs the President to appoint an elective official, i.e., the Mayor of Olongapo City, to other
government posts (as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of SBMA). Since this is precisely what the constitutional
proscription seeks to prevent, it needs no stretching of the imagination to conclude that the proviso contravenes Sec. 7, first par., Art.
IX-B, of the Constitution. Here, the fact that the expertise of an elective official may be most beneficial to the higher interest of the
body politic is of no moment.

It is argued that Sec. 94 of the Local Government Code (LGC) permits the appointment of a local elective official to another post if so
allowed by law or by the primary functions of his office. 8 But, the contention is fallacious. Section 94 of the LGC is not determinative
of the constitutionality of Sec. 13, par. (d), of R.A. 7227, for no legislative act can prevail over the fundamental law of the land.
Moreover, since the constitutionality of Sec. 94 of LGC is not the issue here nor is that section sought to be declared unconstitutional,
we need not rule on its validity. Neither can we invoke a practice otherwise unconstitutional as authority for its validity.

In any case, the view that an elective official may be appointed to another post if allowed by law or by the primary functions of his
office, ignores the clear-cut difference in the wording of the two (2) paragraphs of Sec. 7, Art.
IX-B, of the Constitution. While the second paragraph authorizes holding of multiple offices by an appointive official when allowed
by law or by the primary functions of his position, the first paragraph appears to be more stringent by not providing any exception to
the rule against appointment or designation of an elective official to the government post, except as are particularly recognized in the
Constitution itself, e.g., the President as head of the economic and planning agency; 9 the Vice-President, who may be appointed
Member of the Cabinet; 10 and, a member of Congress who may be designated ex officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council. 11

The distinction between the first and second paragraphs of Sec. 7, Art. IX-B, was not accidental when drawn, and not without reason.
It was purposely sought by the drafters of the Constitution as shown in their deliberation, thus —

MR. MONSOD. In other words, what then Commissioner is saying, Mr. Presiding Officer, is that the prohibition is
more strict with respect to elective officials, because in the case of appointive officials, there may be a law that will
allow them to hold other positions.

MR. FOZ. Yes, I suggest we make that difference, because in the case of appointive officials, there will be certain
situations where the law should allow them to hold some other positions. 12

The distinction being clear, the exemption allowed to appointive officials in the second paragraph cannot be extended to elective
officials who are governed by the first paragraph.

It is further argued that the SBMA posts are merely ex officio to the position of Mayor of Olongapo City, hence, an excepted
circumstance, citing Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, 13 where we stated that the prohibition against the holding of any
other office or employment by the President, Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants during their
tenure, as provided in Sec. 13, Art. VII, of the Constitution, does not comprehend additional duties and functions required by the
primary functions of the officials concerned, who are to perform them in an ex officio capacity as provided by law, without receiving
any additional compensation therefor.

This argument is apparently based on a wrong premise. Congress did not contemplate making the subject SBMA posts as ex officio or
automatically attached to the Office of the Mayor of Olongapo City without need of appointment. The phrase "shall be appointed"
unquestionably shows the intent to make the SBMA posts appointive and not merely adjunct to the post of Mayor of Olongapo City.
Had it been the legislative intent to make the subject positions ex officio, Congress would have, at least, avoided the word "appointed"
and, instead, "ex officio" would have been used. 14
Even in the Senate deliberations, the Senators were fully aware that subject proviso may contravene Sec. 7, first par., Art. IX-B, but
they nevertheless passed the bill and decided to have the controversy resolved by the courts. Indeed, the Senators would not have been
concerned with the effects of Sec. 7, first par., had they considered the SBMA posts as ex officio.

Cognizant of the complication that may arise from the way the subject proviso was stated, Senator Rene Saguisag remarked that "if
the Conference Committee just said "the Mayor shall be the Chairman" then that should foreclose the issue. It is a legislative
choice." 15 The Senator took a view that the constitutional proscription against appointment of elective officials may have been
sidestepped if Congress attached the SBMA posts to the Mayor of Olongapo City instead of directing the President to appoint him to
the post. Without passing upon this view of Senator Saguisag, it suffices to state that Congress intended the posts to be appointive,
thus nibbling in the bud the argument that they are ex officio.

The analogy with the position of Chairman of the Metro Manila Authority made by respondents cannot be applied to uphold the
constitutionality of the challenged proviso since it is not put in issue in the present case. In the same vein, the argument that if no
elective official may be appointed or designated to another post then Sec. 8, Art. IX-B, of the Constitution allowing him to receive
double compensation 16 would be useless, is non sequitur since Sec. 8 does not affect the constitutionality of the subject proviso. In
any case, the Vice-President for example, an elective official who may be appointed to a cabinet post under Sec. 3, Art. VII, may
receive the compensation attached to the cabinet position if specifically authorized by law.

Petitioners also assail the legislative encroachment on the appointing authority of the President. Section 13, par. (d), itself vests in the
President the power to appoint the Chairman of the Board and the Chief Executive Officer of SBMA, although he really has no choice
under the law but to appoint the Mayor of Olongapo City.

As may be defined, an "appointment" is "[t]he designation of a person, by the person or persons having authority therefor, to discharge
the duties of some office or trust," 17 or "[t]he selection or designation of a person, by the person or persons having authority therefor,
to fill an office or public function and discharge the duties of the same. 18 In his treatise, Philippine Political
Law, 19 Senior Associate Justice Isagani A. Cruz defines appointment as "the selection, by the authority vested with the power, of an
individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office."

Considering that appointment calls for a selection, the appointing power necessarily exercises a discretion. According to Woodbury,
J., 20 "the choice of a person to fill an office constitutes the essence of his appointment,"21 and Mr. Justice Malcolm adds that an
"[a]ppointment to office is intrinsically an executive act involving the exercise of discretion." 22 In Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng
Maynila v. Intermediate Appellate Court 23 we held:

The power to appoint is, in essence, discretionary. The appointing power has the right of choice which he may
exercise freely according to his judgment, deciding for himself who is best qualified among those who have the
necessary qualifications and eligibilities. It is a prerogative of the appointing power . . . .

Indeed, the power of choice is the heart of the power to appoint. Appointment involves an exercise of discretion of whom to appoint; it
is not a ministerial act of issuing appointment papers to the appointee. In other words, the choice of the appointee is a fundamental
component of the appointing power.

Hence, when Congress clothes the President with the power to appoint an officer, it (Congress) cannot at the same time limit the
choice of the President to only one candidate. Once the power of appointment is conferred on the President, such conferment
necessarily carries the discretion of whom to appoint. Even on the pretext of prescribing the qualifications of the officer, Congress
may not abuse such power as to divest the appointing authority, directly or indirectly, of his discretion to pick his own choice.
Consequently, when the qualifications prescribed by Congress can only be met by one individual, such enactment effectively
eliminates the discretion of the appointing power to choose and constitutes an irregular restriction on the power of appointment. 24

In the case at bar, while Congress willed that the subject posts be filled with a presidential appointee for the first year of its operations
from the effectivity of R.A. 7227, the proviso nevertheless limits the appointing authority to only one eligible, i.e., the incumbent
Mayor of Olongapo City. Since only one can qualify for the posts in question, the President is precluded from exercising his discretion
to choose whom to appoint. Such supposed power of appointment, sans the essential element of choice, is no power at all and goes
against the very nature itself of appointment.

While it may be viewed that the proviso merely sets the qualifications of the officer during the first year of operations of SBMA, i.e.,
he must be the Mayor of Olongapo City, it is manifestly an abuse of congressional authority to prescribe qualifications where only
one, and no other, can qualify. Accordingly, while the conferment of the appointing power on the President is a perfectly valid
legislative act, the proviso limiting his choice to one is certainly an encroachment on his prerogative.
Since the ineligibility of an elective official for appointment remains all throughout his tenure or during his incumbency, he may
however resign first from his elective post to cast off the constitutionally-attached disqualification before he may be considered fit for
appointment. The deliberation in the Constitutional Commission is enlightening:

MR. DAVIDE. On Section 4, page 3, line 8, I propose the substitution of the word "term" with TENURE.

MR. FOZ. The effect of the proposed amendment is to make possible for one to resign from his position.

MR. DAVIDE. Yes, we should allow that prerogative.

MR. FOZ. Resign from his position to accept an executive position.

MR. DAVIDE. Besides, it may turn out in a given case that because of, say, incapacity, he may leave the service,
but if he is prohibited from being appointed within the term for which he was elected, we may be depriving the
government of the needed expertise of an individual. 25

Consequently, as long as he is an incumbent, an elective official remains ineligible for appointment to another public office.

Where, as in the case of respondent Gordon, an incumbent elective official was, notwithstanding his ineligibility, appointed to other
government posts, he does not automatically forfeit his elective office nor remove his ineligibility imposed by the Constitution. On the
contrary, since an incumbent elective official is not eligible to the appointive position, his appointment or designation thereto cannot
be valid in view of his disqualification or lack of eligibility. This provision should not be confused with Sec. 13, Art. VI, of the
Constitution where "(n)o Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in the
Government . . . during his term without forfeiting his seat . . . ." The difference between the two provisions is significant in the sense
that incumbent national legislators lose their elective posts only after they have been appointed to another government office, while
other incumbent elective officials must first resign their posts before they can be appointed, thus running the risk of losing the elective
post as well as not being appointed to the other post. It is therefore clear that ineligibility is not directly related with forfeiture of
office. ". . . . The effect is quite different where it is expresslyprovided by law that a person holding one office shall be ineligible to
another. Such a provision is held to incapacitate the incumbent of an office from accepting or holding a second office (State ex rel.
Van Antwerp v Hogan, 283 Ala. 445, 218 So 2d 258; McWilliams v Neal, 130 Ga 733, 61 SE 721) and to render his election or
appointment to the latter office void (State ex rel. Childs v Sutton, 63 Minn 147, 65 NW 262. Annotation: 40 ALR 945) or voidable
(Baskin v State, 107 Okla 272, 232 p 388, 40 ALR 941)." 26 "Where the constitution, or statutes declare that persons holding one office
shall be ineligible for election or appointment to another office, either generally or of a certain kind, the prohibition has been held to
incapacitate the incumbent of the first office to hold the second so that any attempt to hold the second is void (Ala. — State ex rel.
Van Antwerp v. Hogan, 218 So 2d 258, 283 Ala 445)." 27

As incumbent elective official, respondent Gordon is ineligible for appointment to the position of Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive of SBMA; hence, his appointment thereto pursuant to a legislative act that contravenes the Constitution cannot be sustained.
He however remains Mayor of Olongapo City, and his acts as SBMA official are not necessarily null and void; he may be considered
a de facto officer, "one whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold valid
so far as they involve the interest of the public and third persons, where the duties of the office were exercised . . . . under color of a
known election or appointment, void because the officer was not eligible, or because there was a want of power in the electing or
appointing body, or by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of power or defect being unknown
to the public . . . . [or] under color of an election, or appointment, by or pursuant to a public unconstitutional law, before the same is
adjudged to be such (State vs. Carroll, 38 Conn., 499; Wilcox vs. Smith, 5 Wendell [N.Y.], 231; 21 Am. Dec., 213; Sheehan's Case,
122 Mass, 445, 23 Am. Rep., 323)." 28

Conformably with our ruling in Civil Liberties Union, any and all per diems, allowances and other emoluments which may have been
received by respondent Gordon pursuant to his appointment may be retained by him.

The illegality of his appointment to the SBMA posts being now evident, other matters affecting the legality of the
questioned proviso as well as the appointment of said respondent made pursuant thereto need no longer be discussed.

In thus concluding as we do, we can only share the lament of Sen. Sotero Laurel which he expressed in the floor deliberations of S.B.
1648, precursor of R.A. 7227, when he articulated —

. . . . (much) as we would like to have the present Mayor of Olongapo City as the Chief Executive of this Authority
that we are creating; (much) as I, myself, would like to because I know the capacity, integrity, industry and
dedication of Mayor Gordon; (much) as we would like to give him this terrific, burdensome and heavy
 responsibility, we cannot do it because of the constitutional prohibition which is very clear. It says: "No elective
official shall be appointed or designated to another position in any capacity." 29

For, indeed, "a Constitution must be firm and immovable, like a mountain amidst the strife of storms or a rock in the ocean amidst the
raging of the waves." 30 One of the characteristics of the Constitution is permanence, i.e., "its capacity to resist capricious or whimsical
change dictated not by legitimate needs but only by passing fancies, temporary passions or occasional infatuations of the people with
ideas or personalities . . . . Such a Constitution is not likely to be easily tampered with to suit political expediency, personal ambitions
or ill-advised agitation for change." 31

Ergo, under the Constitution, Mayor Gordon has a choice. We have no choice.

WHEREFORE, the proviso in par. (d), Sec. 13, of R.A. 7227, which states: ". . . Provided, however, That for the first year of its
operations from the effectivity of this Act, the Mayor of the City of Olongapo shall be appointed as the chairman and chief executive
officer of the Subic Authority," is declared unconstitutional; consequently, the appointment pursuant thereto of the Mayor of Olongapo
City, respondent Richard J. Gordon, is INVALID, hence NULL and VOID.

However, all per diems, allowances and other emoluments received by respondent Gordon, if any, as such Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer may be retained by him, and all acts otherwise legitimate done by him in the exercise of his authority as officer de
facto of SBMA are hereby UPHELD.

SO ORDERED.

*********************NOTHING FOLLOWS*********************