G.R. No 146710-15 Estrada vs. DesiertoFACTSMr. Joseph Ejercito Estrada. The petitioner was elected to office by not less than 10 million Filipinos in the elections of May 1998 and Arroyo is elected as Vice-President.October 4, 2000. Ilocos Sur governor Luis Chavit Singson starts publicly accusing Estrada and his family of receiving jueteng payoffs.from jueteng hidden in a bank account known as Jose Velarde a grassroots-based numbers game. Singsons allegation also caused controversy across the nation, which culminated in the House of Representatives filing of an impeachment case against Estrada on November 13, 2000. House SpeakerManny Villarfast-tracked the impeachment complaint. The impeachment suit was brought to the Senate and an impeachment court was formed, with Chief JusticeHilario Davide, Jr.as presiding officer. Estrada, pleaded not guilty.On January 19, ThePhilippine National Policeand theArmed Forces of the Philippinesalso withdrew their support for Estrada and joined the crowd at EDSA Shrine.At 2:00pm, Estrada appeared on television for the first time since the beginning of the protests and maintains that he will not resign. He said that he wanted the impeachment trial to continue, stressing that only a guilty verdict will remove him from office.At 6:15pm, Estrada again appeared on television, calling for a snap presidential election to be held concurrently with congressional and local elections on May 14, 2001. He added that he will not run in this election.On January 20, the Supreme Court declared that the seat of presidency was vacant, saying that Estrada constructively resigned his post.Noon of the same day, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took her oath of office in the presence of the crowd at EDSA, becoming the 14th president of the Philippines.At 2:00pm, Estrada released a letter saying he had strong and serious doubts about the legality and constitutionality of her proclamation as president, but saying he would give up his office to avoid being an obstacle to healing the nation. Estrada and his family later left Malacaang Palace.A heap of cases then succeeded Estradas leaving the palace, which he countered by filing a peition for prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. It sought to enjoin the respondent Ombudsman from conducting any further proceedings in cases filed against him not until his term as president ends. He also 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.ISSUE:1.) Whether or not the case at bar a political or justiciable issue. If justiciable, whether or not petitioner Estrada was a president-on-leave or did he truly resign.2.) Whether or not petitioner may invoke immunity from suits.HELD:The Court defines a political issue as those questions which, under the Constitution, are to bedecided by the peoplein their sovereign capacity, or in regard to whichfull discretionary authorityhas been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon thewisdom, notlegalityof a particular measure.The Court made a distinction between the Aquino presidency and the Arroyo presidency. The Court said that while the Aquino government was a government spawned by the direct demand of the people in defiance to the 1973 Constitution, overthrowing the old government entirely, the Arroyo government on the other hand was a government exercising under the 1987 constitution, wherein only the office of the president was affected. In the former, it The question of whether the previous president (president Estrada) truly resigned subjects it to judicial review. The Court held that the issue is legal and not political.For the president to be deemed as having resigned,there must be an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment.It is important to follow the succession of events that struck petitioner prior his leaving the palace. Furthermore, the quoted statements extracted from the Angara diaries, detailed Estradas implied resignation On top of all these, the press release he issued regarding is acknowledgement of the oath-taking of Arroyo as president despite his questioning of its legality and his emphasis on leaving the presidential seat for the sake of peace. The Court held that petitioner Estrada had resigned by the use of thetotality test: prior, contemporaneous and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on the issue.As to the issue of the peitioners contention that he is immuned from suits, the Court held that petitioner is no longer entitled to absolute immunity from suit. The Court added 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. From the deliberations, the intent of the framers is clear that the immunity of the president from suit is concurrent only with his tenure(the term during which the incumbent actually holds office)and not his term (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).