ESTRADA v.

DESIERTO

Doctrine:

Section 8, Article VII, 1987 Constitution

“In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the
President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term.
In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both
the President and Vice-President, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability,
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then act as President until the
President or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified.

The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as President in case of death,
permanent disability, or resignation of the Acting President. He shall serve until the
President or the Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified, and be subject
to the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting President.”

Facts:

It began in October 2000 when allegations of wrong doings involving bribe-taking, illegal
gambling, and other forms of corruption were made against Estrada before the Senate Blue
Ribbon Committee. On November 13, 2000, Estrada was impeached by the House of
Representatives and, on December 7, impeachment proceedings begun in the Senate during
which more serious allegations of graft and corruption against Estrada were made and were
only stopped on January 16, 2001 when 11 senators, sympathetic to the President, succeeded
in suppressing damaging evidence against Estrada. As a result, the impeachment trial was
thrown into an uproar as the entire prosecution panel walked out and Senate President
Pimentel resigned after casting his vote against Estrada.

On January 19, PNP and the AFP also withdrew their support for Estrada and joined the crowd
at EDSA Shrine. Estrada called 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. On January 20, SC declared that the seat of presidency was vacant, saying
that Estrada “constructively resigned his post”. At noon, Arroyo took her oath of office
in the presence of the crowd at EDSA as the 14th President. Estrada and his family later left
Malacañang Palace. Erap, after his fall, filed petition for prohibition with prayer for WPI. 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 Estrada to be the lawful and incumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines
temporarily unable to discharge the duties of his office.

Issues:

1. Did Pres. Estrada resign from office? YES.

2. Is Pres. Estrada only temporarily unable to act as President? NO.

Ruling:

1. YES. For a resignation to be valid, (1) there must be an intent to resign and (2) the intent
must be coupled by acts of relinquishment. The validity of a resignation is not government 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.
While it is true that Pres. Estrada did not write any formal letter of resignation, the Court held
that the totality of prior, contemporaneous and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence
bearing a material relevance on the issue must be taken into account, as well as the state of
the mind of the President.

As the protests calling for his resignation continue, Pres. Estrada was politically isolated.
Detailed in the Angara Diary, “Final Days of Joseph Ejercito Estrada,” the President decided
to call for a snap election and stressed that he would not participate. When he was offered a
graceful and dignified exit, he did not disagree but still listened intently. Likewise, Pres.
Estrada revealed to Sen. Angara that he would have five more days in the office, as told to
him by Reyes. These information strongly implies the President’s resignation.

During the negotiation for a peaceful and orderly transfer of power, as told in the Angara
Diary, the President says, "Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko na masyado nang masakit. Pagod
na ako sa red tape, bureaucracy, intriga. (I am very tired. I don't want any more of this – it's
too painful. I'm tired of the red tape, the bureaucracy, the intrigue.) I just want to clear my
name, then I will go."

This is high grade evidence that the petitioner has resigned. The intent to resign is clear when
he said "x x x Ayoko na masyado nang masakit." "Ayoko na" are words of resignation.

These words are confirmed when he left Malacanang and release a press statement thanking
his supporters, etc. In line with Sec. 8, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, the President has
resigned and so the Vice-President shall continue in the vacant position and serve the
remaining term.

2. NO. The petitioner’s central stance is that "Congress has the ultimate authority under the
Constitution to determine whether the President is incapable of performing his functions in
the manner provided for in section 11 of article VII."

Irrefutable facts state that both houses of Congress have recognized respondent Arroyo as
the President. Implicitly clear in that recognition is the premise that the inability of petitioner
Estrada is no longer temporary. Congress has clearly rejected petitioner's claim of inability,
proved by the fact that despite receipt of the letter, the House of Representatives passed on
January 24, 2001 House Resolution No. 175, which expressed the full support of the House
of Representatives to Arroyo’s presidency.

DOROMAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN

Doctrine:

Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution

"The President, Vice-President, the members of the Cabinet and their deputies or
assistants shall not... during (their) tenure, ...directly or indirectly... participate in any
business."

Facts:

Quintin S. Doromal, a former Commissioner of the Presidential Commission on Good

Government (PCGG), for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), Sec.
3(h), in connection with his shareholdings and position as president and director of the
Doromal International Trading Corporation (DITC) which submitted bids to supply P61 million
worth of electronic, electrical, automotive, mechanical and airconditioning equipment to the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports (or DECS) and the National Manpower and Youth
Council (or NMYC).

Issue: Does the act of Doromal violates the Constitution?

Ruling: YES. "The presence of a signed document bearing the signature of accused Doromal
as part of the application to bid ... is not a sine qua non,” for, the Ombudsman indicated in
his Memorandum/Clearance to the Special Prosecutor, that the petitioner "can rightfully be
charged ...with having participated in a business which act is absolutely prohibited by Section
13 of Article VII of the Constitution" because "the DITC remained a family corporation in which
Doromal has at least an indirect interest."

CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Doctrine:

Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution

Sec. 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies
or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other
office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly
or indirectly practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially
interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the
Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly
avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.

Facts:

Executive Order No. 284 is being challenged by petitioners on the principal submission that it
adds exceptions to Section 13, Article VII other than those provided in the Constitution.
According to petitioners, by virtue of the phrase "unless otherwise provided in this
Constitution," the only exceptions against holding any other office or employment in
Government are those provided in the Constitution, namely: (1) The Vice-President may be
appointed as a Member of the Cabinet under Section 3, par. (2), Article VII thereof; and (2)
the Secretary of Justice is an ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of
Section 8 (1), Article VIII.

Petitioners further argue that the exception to the prohibition in Section 7, par. (2), Article I-
XB on the Civil Service Commission applies to officers and employees of the Civil Service in
general and that said exceptions do not apply and cannot be extended to Section 13, Article
VII which applies specifically to the President, Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet and
their deputies or assistants.

Issue: Is E.O. No. 284 constitutional?

Ruling: NO. The prohibition against holding dual or multiple offices or employment under
Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution must not be construed as applying to posts occupied
by the Executive officials specified therein without additional compensation in an ex-officio
capacity as provided by law and as required by the primary functions of said officials' office.
The reason is that these posts do no comprise "any other office" within the contemplation of
the constitutional prohibition but are properly an imposition of additional duties and functions
on said officials.

The term ex-officio means "from office; by virtue of office." It refers to an "authority derived
from official character merely, not expressly conferred upon the individual character, but
rather annexed to the official position." Ex-officio likewise denotes an "act done in an official
character, or as a consequence of office, and without any other appointment or authority than
that conferred by the office."

Since, the assailed provisions explicitly restricted the number of positions that Cabinet
members, undersecretaries or assistant secretaries may hold in addition to their primary
position to not more than two (2) positions in the government and government corporations,
Executive Order No. 284 actually allows them to hold multiple offices or employment in direct
contravention of the express mandate of Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution
prohibiting them from doing so, unless otherwise provided in the 1987 Constitution itself.