JOSEPH ESTRADA Petitioner v GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO respondent

G.R. No. 146710-15 March 2,2001Ponente: Puno, J.:

FACTS:

This involves petitions of Joseph Ejercito Estrada challenging the respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as the de jure 14th
President of the Republic. A short outline of events that precipitated the case at bar thus follows:

Petitioner won in the May 1998 national elections as president, the respondent as vice-president. On October 4, 2000, Ilocos
Sur Governor Chavit Singson accused the petitioner and his family of receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords. Such
expose ignited several reactions of rage. There became a built up of a call for petitioner to resign from office and his
officials one by one resigned withdrawing their support. In November 20 Impeachment Trial of the petitioner was opened,
in December, Impeachment Trial began.

January 19 people lined up in EDSA showing a greater call for the resignation of the president. January 20 was the day of
petitioner's surrender. At 12:00 noon Chief Justice Hilario Davide administered oath to respondent Arroyo as President of
the Philippines. At 2:30 pm petitioner left Malacanang and issued a press statement and a letter transmitting the executive
power upon him, the president to the vice president becoming the acting president. The Monday after the oath, Arroyo
discharged powers of the President. Criminal cases have been filed against the petitioner after he stepped down into
presidency.

ISSUES:

1. WON the cases at bar present a justiciable controversy / political question specifically in regard the legitimacy of
the Arroyo administration
2. WON Estrada merely resigned as President
3. WON Estrada is only temporarily unable to act as President
4. WON Estrada enjoys immunity from suit
5. WON the prosecution of petitioner Estrada should be enjoined due to prejudicial publicity

HELD:

The petitions of Joseph Ejercito Estrada challenging the respondent GloriaMacapagal-Arroyo as the
de jure 14th President of the Republic are DISMISSED.

1.The question on the legitimacy of the Arroyo administration is subject to judicial review. It is a legal question, which is
justiciable.

At first, it can be said that acquisition of the presidential seat of respondent Arroyo would be similar to that of former
President Corazon Aquino as they were placed into position by meansof the call of the people in a revolutionary mass
demonstration known as EDSA I for Aquino, and EDSA II for Arroyo. It has been stressed by private respondents that
Arroyo ascended the presidency through people power; that she has already taken her oath as the 14th President of the
Republic; thatshe has exercised the powers of the presidency and that she has been recognized by foreign governments.
Consequently, the grounds of the case show that such is a political question.SC read the case Lawyers League vs Pres.
Aquino, which decided that the legitimacy of Aquino administration in question was a political question. The Freedom
Constitution declared that Aquino's government was a result a successful peaceful revolution by the sovereign Filipino
people, hence a political question. In contrast, Arroyo's government was not revolutionary in character. Arroyo swore
under the 1987 Constitution.

There is a legal distinction between EDSA People Power I and EDSA People Power II. EDSA I
involves the exercise of the people power of revolution which overthrew the wholegovernment; it presented then a political
question. 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, presenting a legal and justiciable question, presenting a legal and justiciablequestion.
2. It was held that Estrada has resigned as President.
The issue was whether the petitioner resigned as President or should he be consideredresigned as of January 20, 2001 when
respondent took her oath as the 14th President of the Public in view of Art. VII Sec. 8 of 1987 Constitution.

It was said that there must be intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment
. There is no formal requirement as to form of a valid resignation. It can be oral. It can be written. It can be express. It can be
implied. As long as the resignation is clear,
itmust be given legal effect. 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 the TOTALITY TEST, Estrada was held to have resigned as President.

Intent to Resign. There was public pressure for petitioner to resign. In the diary of Executive
Secretary Eduardo Angara called "Final Days of Joseph Ejercito Estrada," an authoritative window to the
state of mind of the petitioner was provided. On January 20, 2:30 pm he proposed for a snap election for president
in May, emphasizing that he would not be a candidate. This is an indication that he intended to give up the presidency even
at that time. As his support from his officials were withdrawn, he was even advised to have a "dignified exit or resignation."
Estrada did not object to this suggestion but stated that he would never leave the country. At 10:00 p.m. he said to Angara
"Ed, Angie (Reyes) guaranteed that I would have five days to a week in the palace." This was proof 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. Estrada became concerned with peaceful and orderly transfer of power when he told Angara ""Ed,
magtulungan tayo para magkaroon tayo ng (let's cooperate to ensure a) peaceful and orderly transfer of power." The
resignation of the petitioner was implied.

Acts of Relinquishment. In the press release containing his final statement before he and his family left Malacanang, (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 andthat 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
ofourcountry. Petitioner's reference is to a future challenge after occupying the office of thepresident which he has given
up; and (5) he called on his supporters to join him
in thepromotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. Certainly, thenational spirit of reconciliation
and solidarity could not be attained if he did not give up
thepresidency. The press release was petitioner's valedictory, his final act of farewell. Hispresidency is now in the past tense.

3. The law which concerned this issue was Article VII Sec.11 which provides in part: “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." "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" The
operative facts concerning this issue are:*Petitioner, on January 20, 2001, sent letter claiming inability to the Senate
President and Speaker of the House;*Unaware of the letter, respondent Arroyo took her oath of office as President on
January 20,2001 at about 12:30 p.m.;*Despite receipt of the letter, the House of Representatives passed on January 24, 2001
House Resolution No. 175; followed by House Resolution No. 176 a resolution expressing the
supportof the house of representatives to the assumption into office by Vice President GloriaMacapagal-Arroyo as President
of the Republic of the Philippines, adopted January 24, 2001.
Clearly, from the given facts, 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 temporary inability. The Court has no jurisdiction to review the temporary inability and to revise
thereafter the decision of both houses of Congress recognizing Arroyo as President because this question involves
the Legislature's discretionary authority.

4. It was held the Estrada is not immune for liability. His claim that he must the impeachment proceeding must first be
decided before civil or criminal prosecution begin is untenable for he has been considered resigned from office. Hence the
impeachment tribunal and proceeding has ceased. Hence, as a non-sitting President, he can be tried for civil and criminal
charges filed against him.

5. Petitioner contended 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 stated that the respondent Ombudsman has
developed bias and is all set file the criminal cases violation of his right to due process. It was held that there was not
enoughevidence to warrant the Court to enjoin the preliminary investigation of thepetitioner by the respondent Ombudsman.
The evidence given by petitioner thatOmbudsman has been biased by the pervasive prejudicial publicity against him wasins
ubstantial.