Estrada v.
Desierto Supreme Court a petition for prohibition which
G.R. No. 146710-15 and G.R. No. 146738 | 2001-03-02
Subject:
Political Question; EDSA 1 vs EDSA 2;
Resignation; Conviction by Impeachment as a Bar
to Prosecution; Presidential Immunity from Suit;
Public Office is a Public Trust; Theory of
Derivative Prejudice
Facts:
Former President Joseph Estrada was elected
during 1998 elections. Sometime in October
2000, however, several allegations of corruption
and of receiving millions of pesos from jueteng
lords were made against him before the Senate
Blue Ribbon Committee. Some Congressmen
moved to impeach Estrada which caused several
sectors, former Presidents Aquino and Ramos to
call for Estrada’s resignation. Some senior
advisers of Estrada as well as a number of his
cabinet resigned from their positions.
Impeachment trial commenced with Chief Justice
Davide presiding.
The impeachment trial was put to a halt after the
public prosecutors tendered their collective
resignation before the Impeachment Tribunal
caused by the decision of 11 Senators not to open
the second envelope (an alleged secret account of
Erap amounting to 3.3B Pesos in the name of Jose
Velarde). An indefinite postponement of the
Impeachment proceedings was granted by the
Chief Justice.
The next day, EDSA 2 commenced with the PNP
and AFP joining the crowd. In the succeeding
days, a chain of resignations from the military,
the police, and the cabinet ensued. On January
20, Supreme Court declared the seat for
presidency as vacant, saying that Estrada
“constructively resigned his post.” At noon, Chief
Justice, whose authority was later unanimously
confirmed by SC, administered the oath to Arroyo
as President of the Philippines. That same
afternoon, Estrada and his family left Malacañang
and transmitted a signed letter appointing then
Vice-President Arroyo as Acting President, citing
Section 11, Article 7 of the Constitution, to the
House Speaker and Senate President.
Several cases were filed against Estrada in the
Office of the Ombudsman. Estrada filed with the
Resignation
sought to enjoin the Ombudsman from conducting
any further proceedings in cases filed against him,
not until his term as president ends. He also filed
a petition for quo warranto praying for judgment
confirming him to be the lawful and incumbent
President of the Philippines “temporarily unable to
discharge the duties of his office.”
Held:
Political Question
1. The Court held that the cases at bar do
not involve a political question and therefore falls
within the ambit of judicial scrutiny pursuant to
the doctrine of separation of powers of coordinate
branches of government.
2. Political question refers to those questions
which, under our 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 government. It is concerned with the
issues dependent on the wisdom, not legality of a
particular measure.
3. 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.
EDSA 1 vs EDSA 2
4. EDSA People Power I involves the exercise of
the people power of revolution which overthrew
the whole government while EDSA People Power
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.
5. EDSA I is extra constitutional but EDSA II
is intra constitutional.
6. EDSA I presented a political question while
EDSA II involved legal questions.
7. Using the totality test, the Supreme Court held
that petitioner resigned as President - which was
confirmed by his leaving Malacañang.
8. Facts show that petitioner did not write any
formal letter of resignation before he evacuated
Malacanang 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 acts 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.
9. In the press release containing his final
statement,
(1) He acknowledged the oath-taking of Arroyo 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 of 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.
10. Resignation is a factual question and
its elements are beyond quibble: (1) there must
be an intent to resignand (2) the intent must be
coupled by acts of relinquishment. The validity of
a resignation is not governed 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.
11. 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.
Recognition of Presidency of Arroyo
12. The issue whether the Supreme Court has
jurisdiction to review the claim of temporary
inability of former President Estrada and
thereafter revise the decision of both Houses of
Congress recognizing Arroyo as President is
political in nature and addressed solely to
Congress by constitutional fiat—it is a political
issue which cannot be decided by the Supreme
Court without transgressing the principle of
separation of powers.
13. Implicitly clear in the recognition by both
houses of Congress of Arroyo as President is the
premise that the inability of former President
Estrada is no longer temporary.
then convicted before he can be prosecuted. The
plea if granted, would put a perpetual bar against
his prosecution. 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.
Presidential Immunity from Suit
16. Estrada does NOT enjoy immunity from suit.
Incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or
from being brought to court during the period of
their incumbency and tenure but not beyond in
accordance with the ruling inIn Re: Saturnino
Bermudez.
17. The cases filed against petitioner Estrada are
criminal in character (plunder, bribery and graft
and corruption). Estrada cannot cite any decision
of this Court licensing the President to commit
criminal acts and wrapping him with post-tenure
immunity from liability. 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 other
trespasser.
Public Office is a Public Trust
18. One of the great themes of the 1987
Constitution is that a public office is a public trust.
official, employee, office or agency, when such act
or omission appears to be illegal, unjust,
improper, or inefficient.” The Office of the
Ombudsman was also given fiscal autonomy.
Theory of Derivative Prejudice
19. The Court cannot adopt former President
Estrada’s theory of derivative prejudice, i.e., that
the prejudice of the Ombudsman flows to his
subordinates.
20. Our Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure give
investigating prosecutors the independence to
make their own findings and recommendations
albeit they are reviewable by their superiors. They
can be reversed but they cannot be compelled to
change their recommendations nor can they be
compelled to prosecute 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 petitioner believes that the finding
of probable cause against him is the result of bias,
he still has the remedy of assailing it before the
proper court.

14. Former President Estrada cannot successfully
claim that he is a President on leave on the
ground that he is merely unable to govern
temporarily since such claim has been laid to rest
by Congress and the decision that President
Arroyo is the de jure President made by a co-
equal branch of government cannot be reviewed
by the Supreme Court.
Conviction by Impeachment as a Bar to
Prosecution
15. The Supreme Court rejects former President
Estrada’s argument that he cannot be prosecuted
for the reason that he must first be convicted in
the impeachment proceedings. His impeachment
trial 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.” Since the Impeachment Court is
now functus officio, it is untenable for petitioner
to demand that he should first be impeached and
It declared as a state policy that “(t)he State shall
maintain honesty and integrity in the public
service and take positive and effective measures
against graft and corruption.”
It ordained that “(p)ublic 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.”
It set the rule that “(t)he 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, laches or estoppel.”
It maintained the Sandiganbayan as an anti-graft
court.
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