ESTRADA vs.DESIERTO

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

MARG CASALS

JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, petitioner, vs. ANIANODESIERTO, in his capacity as Ombudsman, et.al.

PARTIES

VSVSVS

CONSTI TOPICSI. VACANCY DURING THE TERM (SECTION 8)II. TEMPORARY DISABILITY (SECTION 8)III. PROHIBITIONS (SECTION 13)

PS Voice-Over Services | 2020

On May 11, 1998 elections, Estrada was elected President while respondent Arroyo was

elected Vice-President. Both petitioner and the respondent were to serve a six-year term

commencing on June 30, 1998.

On October 4, 2000. Ilocos Sur Governor, Luis "Chavit" Singson, went on air and accused the

petitioner, his family and friends of receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords.

On October 5, 2000, Senator Guingona, Jr., delivered a fiery privilege speech entitled "I

Accuse" and accused the petitioner of receiving some P220 million in jueteng money from

Governor Singson and took P70 million from Singson on excise tax on cigarettes intended for

Ilocos Sur. The House of Representatives decided to investigate the exposẻ of Governor

Singson.

FACTS OF THE CASE

FACTS OF THE CASECalls for the resignation of the petitioner filled the air. Senior economic advisers, Arroyo, and

Mar Roxas have resigned. Senate President Franklin Drilon, and House Speaker Manuel Villar,

together with some 47 representatives defected from the ruling coalition, Lapian ng Masang

Pilipino. On November 13, House Speaker Villar transmitted the Articles of Impeachment

signed by 115 representatives, or more than 1/3 of all the members of the House of

Representatives to the Senate.

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.

On January 18, 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.

January 20 turned to be the day of surrender. At about 12:00 noon, Chief Justice Davide

administered the oath to respondent Arroyo as President of the Philippines. At 2:30 p.m.,

petitioner and his family hurriedly left Malacañang Palace. He issued the following letters:

FACTS OF THE CASE

Jan 20 1st Letter

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"

Jan 20 2nd LetterSir:

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"

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 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.

On February 7, the Senate passed Resolution No. 83 declaring that the impeachment court is

functus officio (of no further official authority or legal effect) and has been terminated.

Senator 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.

After Estrada's 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 (i.e. cases of bribery and graft and corruption, violation of the Code of Conduct for

Government Employee, illegal use of public funds and property, plunder, and others)

Petitioner prayed other criminal complaints be filed in his office, until after the term of

petitioner as President is over and only if legally warranted. 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.

ISSUES OFTHIS CASE

The relevant issues for resolution are:

I Whether petitioner Estrada is a President on leave

while respondent Arroyo is an Acting President.

II Whether or not the petitioner Is only temporarily

unable to Act as President.

III. Whether or not the petitioner enjoys immunity

from suit. Assuming he enjoys immunity, the extent

of the immunity

FALLOThe Supreme Court held that the petitions of Joseph

Ejercito Estrada challenging the respondent Gloria

Macapagal-Arroyo as the de jure 14th President of the

Republic are DISMISSED.

However, in the court's cited cases, the government of former President

Aquino was the result of a successful revolution by the sovereign people.

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 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. 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.

RULING OF THE COURTI Whether petitioner Estrada is a President on leave while

respondent Arroyo is an Acting President.

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.

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."

There must be an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of

relinquishment. 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.

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, the court held that petitioner resigned as President.

It is important to follow the succession of events after the exposẻ of Governor Singson.

Following are excerpts from the Angara's diary serialized in the Philippine Daily Inquirer:

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 2:30 p.m., the petitioner decided to call for a snap presidential

election and stressed he would not be a candidate. This proposal is indicative that

petitioner had intended to give up the presidency even at that time. 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." 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.

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." 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.

Erap also said "Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko na masyado nang masakit. Pagod na ako sa

red tape, bureaucracy, intriga."Again, this is high grade evidence that the petitioner has

resigned. The intent to resign is clear when he said "Ayoko na masyado nang masakit."

"Ayoko na" are words of resignation.

Erap also said "Pagod na pagod na ako.

Ayoko na masyado nang masakit. Pagod

na ako sa red tape, bureaucracy,

intriga."Again, this is high grade evidence

that the petitioner has resigned. The intent

to resign is clear when he said "Ayoko na

masyado nang masakit." "Ayoko na" are

words of resignation.

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

Petitioner claimed that he is merely temporarily unable to perform the powers and duties of

the presidency, and hence is a President on leave. The inability claim is contained in the

second letter January 20, 2001. An examination of section 11, Article VII 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."

Petitioner, on January 20, 2001, sent the above 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 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."

For the operative facts:

1.

2.

3.

4. On February 7, 2001, the House of the Representatives passed House Resolution No. 178

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."

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

6. 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.

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.

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.

III. Whether or not the petitioner enjoys immunity from suit.

Assuming he enjoys immunity, the extent of the immunity

Under Section 13 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution:

"SECTION 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.

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 their subsidiaries."

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.

Per 1910 case of Forbes, etc. vs. Chuoco Tiaco and Crosfield, "The judiciary has full power to

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 Governor General (President) 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."

The Court rejected Estrada's argument that he cannot be prosecuted for the reason that he

must first be convicted in the impeachment proceedings. Since, the Impeachment Court is

now functus officio, he cannot 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. 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.

In In Re: Saturnino Bermudez that 'incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or from

being brought to court during the period of their incumbency and tenure" but not beyond.

Regarding 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.

-End of Slides-

THANK

YOU!