G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015 ATTY. ALICIA RISOSVIDAL VS.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015
ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL, ALFREDO S. LIM PETITIONER-INTERVENOR,
VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
NATURE:
These are petitions including:
1) a Petition for Certiorari filed by Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal, which essentially prays for
the issuance of the writ of certiorari annulling and setting aside the April 1,
2013 and April 23, 2013 Resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC),
Second Division and En banc, respectively.
(2) a Petition-in-Intervention[ filed by Alfredo S. Lim praying to be declared the 2013
winning candidate for Mayor of the City of Manila in view of private respondent
former President Joseph Ejercito Estradas) disqualification to run for and hold public
office
FACTS:
On September 12, 2007, the Sandiganbayan convicted former President Estrada, a
former President of the Republic of the Philippines, for the crime of plunder and was
sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and the accessory
penalties of civil interdiction during the period of sentence and perpetual absolute
disqualification.
On October 25, 2007, however, former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo extended
executive clemency, by way of pardon, to former President Estrada explicitly states
that He is hereby restored to his civil and political rights.
On November 30, 2009, former President Estrada filed a Certificate of
Candidacy[7] for the position of President but was opposed by three petitions seeking
for his disqualification. None of the cases prospered and MRs were denied by
Comelec En Banc. Estrada only managed to garner the second highest number of
votes on the May 10, 2010 synchronized elections.
On October 2, 2012, former President Estrada once more ventured into the political
arena, and filed a Certificate of Candidacy, [10] this time vying for a local elective
post, that of the Mayor of the City of Manila.
Petitioner Risos-Vidal filed a Petition for Disqualification against former President
Estrada before the COMELEC because of Estradas Conviction for Plunder by the
Sandiganbayan Sentencing Him to Suffer the Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with
Perpetual Absolute Disqualification. Petitioner relied on Section 40 of the Local
Government Code (LGC), in relation to Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code
(OEC)

In a Resolution dated April 1, 2013, the COMELEC, Second Division, dismissed the
petition for disqualification holding that President Estradas right to seek public
office has been effectively restored by the pardon vested upon him by former
President Gloria M. Arroyo.
Estrada won the mayoralty race in May 13, 2013 elections. Petitioner-intervenor
Alfredo Lim garnered the second highest votes intervene and seek to disqualify
Estrada for the same ground as the contention of Risos-Vidal and praying that he be
proclaimed as Mayor of Manila.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that former President Estrada is qualified to
vote and be voted for in public office as a result of the pardon granted to him by
former President Arroyo.
HELD:
No. The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Resolutions. The
arguments forwarded by Risos-Vidal fail to adequately demonstrate any factual or
legal bases to prove that the assailed COMELEC Resolutions were issued in a
whimsical, arbitrary or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or
refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or were so patent and gross as
to constitute grave abuse of discretion.
Former President Estrada was granted an absolute pardon that fully restored allhis
civil and political rights, which naturally includes the right to seek public elective
office, the focal point of this controversy. The wording of the pardon extended to
former President Estrada is complete, unambiguous, and unqualified. It is likewise
unfettered by Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code. The only reasonable,
objective, and constitutional interpretation of the language of the pardon is that the
same in fact conforms to Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code.
The proper interpretation of Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code.
A close scrutiny of the text of the pardon extended to former President Estrada
shows that both the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua and its accessory
penalties are included in the pardon. The sentence which states that (h)e is hereby
restored to his civil and political rights, expressly remitted the accessory penalties
that attached to the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua. Hence, even if we apply
Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code, it is indubitable from the text of the
pardon that the accessory penalties of civil interdiction and perpetual absolute
disqualification were expressly remitted together with the principal penalty
of reclusion perpetua.
The disqualification of former President Estrada under Section 40 of the
LGC in relation to Section 12 of the OEC was removed by his acceptance of
the absolute pardon granted to him

While it may be apparent that the proscription in Section 40(a) of the LGC is worded
in absolute terms, Section 12 of the OEC provides a legal escape from the
prohibition a plenary pardon or amnesty. In other words, the latter provision allows
any person who has been granted plenary pardon or amnesty after conviction by
final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude, inter alia, to run for and hold
any public office, whether local or national position.