Case Digest: Joseph Estrada vs.

Aniano Disierto

G.R. No. 146710-15 02 March 2001

FACTS:

After the sharp descent from power of Chavit Singson, he went on air and accused the
petitioner of receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords. Calls for resignation filled
the air and former allies and members of the President’s administration started
resigning one by one. In a session 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 to the Senate. The impeachment trial formally opened which is
the start of the dramatic fall from power of the President, which is most evident in the
EDSA Dos rally. On January 20, the President submitted two letters – one signifying his
leave from the Palace and the other signifying his inability to exercise his powers
pursuant to Section 11, Article VII of the Constitution. Thereafter, Arroyo took oath as
President of the Philippines.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioner resigned as President; and

2. Whether the impeachment proceedings bar the petitioner from resigning

RULING:

1. For a resignation to be legally valid, there must be an intent to resign and the
intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment which may be oral or written,
express or implied, for as long as the resignation is clear. In the press release
containing his final statement, he acknowledged the oath-taking of Arroyo as
President; he emphasized he was leaving the Palace without the mention of any
inability and intent of reassumption; he expressed his gratitude to the people; he
assured will not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in the
same service of the country. This is of high grade evidence of his intent to resign.
2. Petitioner’s contention that the impeachment proceeding is an administrative
investigation that, under section 12 of RA 3019, bars him from resigning is not
affirmed by the Court. The exact nature of an impeachment proceeding is
debatable. But even assuming arguendo that it is an administrative proceeding,
it cannot be considered pending at the time petitioner resigned because the
process already broke down when a majority of the senator-judges voted against
the opening of the second envelope, the public and private prosecutors walked
out, the public prosecutors filed their Manifestation of Withdrawal of
Appearance, and the proceedings were postponed indefinitely. There was, in
effect, no impeachment case pending against the petitioner when he resigned.