Executive Immunity

Estrada v Desierto

Jimi Solomon

Estrada v Desierto
GR No 146710-15
Puno, J.

FACTS
1. In 1998, Joseph Estrada was elected President of the Philippines, while Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo was elected VicePresident. The president was accused with corruption, culminating in Ilocos Sur Governor Chavit Singsons accusations
that the president received millions of pesos from jueteng lords.
2. The Senate and the House of Representatives began early investigations regarding the accusation, while key sociopolitical figures like Cardinal Sin, former Presidents Aquino and Ramos, the vice president, senior advisers and cabinet
members called on the president to resign, and resigned from their cabinet posts themselves.
3. The impeachment trial began on 7 December 2000, with 21 senator-judges presided over by Chief Justice Hilario
Davide. At a point when 11 senator-judges ruled against opening a secondenvelope of evidence showing the presidents
P3.3 billion bank account under the name Jose Velarde, the public prosecutors resigned and a mass demonstration at
EDSA began.
4. CJ Davide granted Senator Raul Rocos motion to postpone the impeachment trial until the House of Representatives
resolved the lack of public prosecutors.
5. With the defection of more officials and of the army and police from the Estrada administration, the president
attempted to appease public sentiment by announcing a snap election and by allowing the second envelope to be
opened. The measures failed, and the calls for resignation strengthened.
6. Petitioner Estrada makes two submissions:
a. The cases filed against him before the respondent Ombudsman should be prohibited because he has not been
convicted in the impeachment proceedings against him
b. He enjoys immunity from all kinds of suit, whether criminal or civil

ISSUES
1.

ARTICLES/LAWS INVOLVED

WON former President Estrada enjoys executive

immunity - NO
2. What is the extent of the immunity

Article 7, Section 1, 1987 Constitution The Executive

Power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines

HELD

1.

Executive Immunity
Estrada v Desierto
Jimi Solomon
WON former President Estrada enjoys executive immunity? No, he no longer has executive immunity.
a. The Court rejects Estradas argument that he cannot be prosecuted for the reason that he must first be
convicted in the impeachment proceedings. The impeachment trial of petitioner Estrada was aborted
by the walkout of the prosecutors and by the events that led to his loss of presidency.
b. Since the Impeachment Court is now functus officio (by Senate Resolution No. 83 Recognizing that the
Impeachment Court is Functus Officio), it is untenable for petitioner to demand that he should first be
c.

impeached and then convicted before he can be prosecuted.

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. (Mr. Romulo: If we decide the purpose of impeachment to remove one from office,
then his resignation would render the case moot and academic. However, as the provision says, the

criminal and civil aspects of it may continue in the ordinary courts.

d. In Re: Saturnino Bermudez: incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or from being brought to
e.

court during the period of their incumbency and tenure but not beyond
The cases filed against petitioner Estrada are criminal in character. They involve plunder, bribery, 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.

2. What is the extent of the immunity?
a. A critical reading of current literature on executive immunity will reveal a judicial disinclination to
expand the privileg especially when it impedes the search for truth or impairs the vindication of a right.
b. US v Nixon When the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a
criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the
fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice.
c. Nixon v Fitzgerald Immunity of the President from civil damages covers only official acts.
d. Clinton v Jones The (US) Presidents immunity from suits for money damages arising out of their
official acts is inapplicable to unofficial conduct.