Estrada v Desierto

GR Nos. 146710-15, 12 March 2001

Facts:

 The court looked at the events that occurred prior and immediately after the
oathtaking of respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) as president of the
Republic of the Philippines.
 On 11 May 1998, petitioner Joseph E. Estrada was elected as President with
GMA as his vice-President. By the late 2000, word spread of Erap’s alleged
involvement in jueteng and his receiving jueteng money as “Jose Pidal”.
 Estrada quickly loses popularity among different social groups and public
officials, even high ranking members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and
the Philippine National Police, started defecting from his agendas.
 Because of the jueteng scandal, an impeachment proceeding started on 7
December 2000. Upon its resumption in January, however, a vote of 11-10
against the opening of the second envelope which allegedly contained evidence
showing Estrada as Jose Velarde with P3.3billion in secret bank account cut
short the impeachment trial as prosecutors walked out and joined the rallying of
people in the streets of Manila.
 Amidst the pressure, Estrada proposed snap elections, which he is not to run as
candidate, to regain stability in the country but such a move did little to quell the
“wave” against him.
 Two rounds of negotiations were held between Estrada’s camp and that of GMA
in the early hours of 20 January 2001 and at 12nn of the same day, GMA took
her oath as RP president. Both houses of Congress acknowledged her
presidency, as well as the international community.
 Estrada, on the other hand, left Malacanang and is now faced with legal action
against him by the Office of the Ombudsman among other things.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the petitioner resigned as President.

2. Whether or not the petitioner is only temporarily unable to act as President and
should be immune from suit.

Ruling:

1. Yes, according to the Constitution and the Ombudsman Act of 1989, resignation
is not a high level legal abstraction. It is a factual question and its elements are
beyond quibble: there must be an intent to resign and 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. In the cases at bar, the facts show that petitioner did not write any formal
letter of resignation before he evacuated Malacañang 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 act 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.
2. No, Using this totality test, we hold that petitioner resigned as President. An
examination of section 11, Article VII is in order. It provides:

Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to
them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be
discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President.

What leaps to the eye from these irrefutable facts is 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.

In fine, even if the petitioner can prove that he did not resign, still, he cannot
successfully claim that he is a President on leave on the ground that he is
merely unable to govern temporarily. That claim has been laid to rest by
Congress and the decision that respondent Arroyo is the de jure, president
made by a co-equal branch of government cannot be reviewed by this Court.

Therefore, Estrada should be held accountable for all crimes that he has
committed. The constitutional policies on accountability of public officers and
public office being of public trust will be devalued if the Court sustains the a
claim of a non-sitting president enjoys immunity from suit for criminal acts he
committed during his incumbency.