Digest of (28) Estrada vs.

Desierto

March 2, 2001

Subject Matter of Dean Maceda - Sorry was not able to catch what it was. Just gonna Digest it as it is.

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 2000, the President was involved in a Jueteng incident which caused an impeachment case filed in the
House of Representatives then elevated to the senate wherein a Impeachment court was formed with
Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. as presiding officer. Estrada, pleaded “not guilty”.

The scandal ignited reactions of rage. On January 18, a crowd continued to grow at EDSA, which came to
be called People Power II (with Cory Aquino joining).

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.

On January 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.

Numerous cases followed Estrada’s leaving the palace, which he countered by filing a petition for
prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. This is to prevent the Ombudsman from
“conducting any further proceedings in cases filed against him not until his term as president ends (he is
invoking presidential immunity)

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 Estrada may invoke (presidential) immunity from suits.

HELD:

ANSWER TO ISSUE 1

A political issue - “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.”

For the president to be considered resigned, there must be an intent to resign and the intent must be
coupled by acts of relinquishment.  This is where the events that happened before his leaving the palace
comes into play.

Most telling is the press release he issued regarding his 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 material relevance
on the issue.

ANSWER TO ISSUE 2

Regarding the Estrada’s contention that he is immune from suits, the Court held that Estrada is no
longer entitled to absolute immunity from suit. The Court added that, 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).