CA S E D I G E S T: E S T RA D A V S .

A RROYO ; EST RADA VS . DESI ERTO

9:55 PM

G.R. No. 146738 Estrada vs. Arroyo

G.R. No 146710-15 Estrada vs. Desierto

March 2, 2001

FACTS:

Estrada was inaugurated as president of the Republic of the Philippines on June 30, 1998 with Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo as his Vice President.

In October 2000, Ilocos Sur governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, a close friend of the President, alleged
that he had personally given Estrada money as payoff from jueteng hidden in a bank account known
as “Jose Velarde” – a grassroots-based numbers game. Singson’s 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 Speaker Manny Villar fast-tracked the impeachment
complaint. The impeachment suit was brought to the Senate and an impeachment court was formed,
with Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. as presiding officer. Estrada, pleaded “not guilty”.

The exposé immediately ignited reactions of rage. On January 18, a crowd continued to grow at EDSA,
bolstered by students from private schools and left-wing organizations. Activists from the group Bayan
and Akbayan as well as lawyers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and other bar associations
joined in the thousands of protesters.

On January 19, The Philippine National Police and the Armed Forces of the Philippines also 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.

OnJanuary 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 2:00 pm, 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 Malacañang Palace.

A heap of cases then succeeded Estrada’s 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 invokeimmunity from suits.

HELD:

The Court defines a political issue as “those questions which, under the 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 the government. It is concerned
with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of 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 Estrada’s 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 the totality test: prior, contemporaneous and
posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on the issue.

As to the issue of the peitioner’s 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).
 De Leon vs. Carpio
on 7:10 AM in Case Digests, Political Law
0

178 SCRA 457 (1989)

o "Alter-ego" Doctrine

FACTS:

Estavillo and de Leon are two NBI agents terminated by then Minister of Justice Neptali A.
Gonzales. Upon appeal to the Review Committee, the said body declined to act on their
petitions for reconsideration on the ground that it had lost its jurisdiction with the ratification of
the new Constitution. They were advised instead to seek relief from the Civil Service
Commission.

The Merit Systems Protection Board of CSC held that their dismissals were invalid and
unconstitutional, having been done in violation of their security of tenure under the 1987
Constitution. Accordingly, the Board ordered their reinstatement.

However, respondent Carpio, as Director of NBI, returned the orders issued by the Secretary of
Justice to CSC “without action,” claiming that they were null and void for having been rendered
without jurisdiction.

ISSUE:

o Whether or not the Director of the NBI can disobey an explicit and direct order issued to him by
the Secretary of Justice

HELD:

It is an elementary principle of our republican government, enshrined in the Constitution and

honored not in the breach but in the observance, that all executive departments, bureaus and
offices are under the control of the President of the Philippines.

The President’s power of control is directly exercised by him over the members of the Cabinet
who, in turn and by his authority, control the bureaus and other offices under their respective
jurisdictions in the executive department. The constitutional vesture of this power in the
President is self-executing and does not require statutory implementation, nor may its exercise
be limited, much less withdrawn, by the legislature.
Theoretically, the President has full control of all the members of his Cabinet and may appoint
them as he sees fit or shuffle them at pleasure, subject only to confirmation by the Commission
on Appointments, and replace them in his discretion. Once in place, they are at all times under
the disposition of the President as their immediate superior. “Without minimizing the importance
of the heads of the various departments, their personality is in reality but the projection of that of
the President. Hence, their acts, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business
are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the
Chief Executive.” (Villena v. Secretary of the Interior)

In the case at bar, there is no question that when he directed the respondent to reinstate the
petitioners, Sec. Ordonez was acting in the regular discharge of his functions as an alter ego of
the President. His acts should therefore have been respected by the respondent Director of the
NBI, which is in the Department of Justice under the direct control of its Secretary. As a
subordinate in this department, the respondent was (and is) bound to obey the Secretary’s
directives, which are presumptively the acts of the President of the Philippines.