Marcos v. Manglapus FACTS: February 1986, Ferdinand E.
Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent “people power” revolution and forced into exile. In his stead, Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the Republic under a revolutionary government. Now, Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philipppines to die. But Mrs. Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family. Petitioners assert that the right of the Marcoses to return to the Philippines is guaranteed under the following provisions of the Bill of Rights, to wit: Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. Furthermore, they contend that the President is without power to impair the liberty of abode of the Marcoses because only a court may do so “within the limits prescribed by law.” Nor may the President impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so. They advance the view that before the right to travel may be impaired by any authority or agency of the government, there must be legislation to that effect. The petitioners further assert that under international law, the right of Mr. Marcos and his family to return to the Philippines is guaranteed. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides: Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Likewise, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which had been ratified by the Philippines, provides: Article liberty of movement and freedom to choose his 12 residence.
1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to
3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (order public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. 4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. ISSUES: • Whether or not the President has the power under the Constitution, to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. • Whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she determined that the return of the Marcose’s to the Philippines poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return. HELD: SC well-considered opinion that the President has a residual power which justifies her act of banning the return of the Marcoses and she did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of former President Marcos and his family at the present time and under present circumstances poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines. It must be emphasized that the individual right involved is not the right to travel from the Philippines to other countries or within the Philippines. These are what the right to travel would normally connote. Essentially, the right involved is the right to return to one’s country, a totally distinct right under international law, independent from although related to the right to travel. Thus, the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treat the right to freedom of movement and abode within the territory of a state, the right to leave a country, and the right to enter one’s country as separate and distinct rights. The Declaration speaks of the “right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state” [Art. 13(l)] separately from the “right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” [Art. 13(2).] On the other hand, the Covenant guarantees the “right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence” [Art. 12(l)] and the right to “be free to leave any country, including his own.” [Art. 12(2)] which rights may be restricted by such laws as “are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or enter qqqs own country” of which one cannot be “arbitrarily deprived.” [Art. 12(4).] It would therefore be inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to one’s country in the same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel. The right to return to one’s country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is our wellconsidered view that the right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of international law and, under our Constitution, is part of the law of the land [Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.] However, it is distinct and separate from the right to travel and enjoys a different
The President is not only clothed with extraordinary powers in times of emergency. the protection of life. in fulfilling presidential duties in times of peace is not in any way diminished by the relative want of an emergency specified in the commander-in-chief provision. this case calls for the exercise of the President’s powers as protector of the peace. a separatist movement in Mindanao. the problem is one of balancing the general welfare and the common good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals. as earlier narrated in this ponencia bolsters the conclusion that the return of the Marcoses at this time would only exacerbate and intensify the violence directed against the State and instigate more chaos. The documented history of the efforts of the Marcose’s and their followers to destabilize the country.. the powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. II.e.] More particularly. liberty. For in making the President commander-in-chief the enumeration of powers that follow cannot be said to exclude the President’s exercising as Commander-inChief powers short of the calling of the armed forces. the murder with impunity of military men. 12 (4).” [Art. The power of the President to keep the peace is not limited merely to exercising the commander-in-chief powers in times of emergency or to leading the State against external and internal threats to its existence. i. It is founded on the duty of the President. or suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or declaring martial law. executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated. and maintain public order and security. Wide discretion.protection under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. The power involved is the President’s residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. and property. police officers and civilian officials. To the President. The Court cannot close its eyes to present realities and pretend that the country is not besieged from within by a well-organized communist insurgency.
. In other words. but is also tasked with attending to the day-to-day problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic tranquility in times when no foreign foe appears on the horizon. in order to keep the peace. it maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope of “executive power. and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy. within the bounds of law. as steward of the people.] Although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise of specific powers of the President. 4 and 5.” Corollarily. to mention only a few. urban terrorism. against being “arbitrarily deprived” thereof [Art. rightist conspiracies to grab power. The Constitution declares among the guiding principles that “[t]he prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people” and that “[t]he maintenance of peace and order. Secs.
many of whom are still here in the Philippines in a position to destabilize the country. sworn to preserve and defend the Constitution and to see the faithful execution the laws. The resulting precarious state of our economy is of common knowledge and is easily within the ambit of judicial notice --In Re Bermudez Facts: This is a petition for declaratory relief filed by the petitioner Bermudez seeking for the clarification of Sec. Issue: Whether the Court should entertain the petition for declaratory relief? Held: It is elementary that this Court assumes no jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief. for purposes of synchronization of elections. while the Government has barely scratched the surface. Aquino and VP Laurel and elected Pres. as quoted: Sec. and it is equally elementary that incumbent
. Marcos and VP Tolentino the said provision refers to. 5. Aquino. We cannot ignore the continually increasing burden imposed on the economy by the excessive foreign borrowing during the Marcos regime. 5. Art. The six-year term of the incumbent President and Vice-President elected in the February 7. the petition amounts in effect to a suit against the incumbent President of the Republic. The President. Protection of the people is the essence of the duty of government. hereby extended to noon of June 30. 1992.emptive action against threats to its existence if. 1986 election is. Then. The first regular elections for the President and Vice-President under this Constitution shall be held on the second Monday of May. (Note: ROC provides that the jurisdiction for petitions for declaratory relief is with the RTC ) More importantly. The preservation of the State the fruition of the people’s sovereignty is an obligation in the highest order. though still nascent they are perceived as apt to become serious and direct. acting through the Government. President Corazon C. 1992. cannot shirk from that responsibility.The State. Petitioner sought the aid of the Court to determine as to whom between the incumbent Pres. which stifles and stagnates development and is one of the root causes of widespread poverty and all its attendant ills. 18 of the proposed 1986 Constitution. so to speak. is not precluded from taking pre. We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the country is only now beginning to recover from the hardships brought about by the plunder of the economy attributed to the Marcoses and their close associates and relatives. in its efforts to recover the enormous wealth stashed away by the Marcoses in foreign jurisdictions.
All that is required is that the respondent be given the opportunity to submit counteraffidavits if he is so minded.Presidents are immune from suit or from being brought to court during the period of their incumbency and tenure. waiving his right to refute the complaint by filing counter-affidavits. Whether or not the President of the Philippines. may initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners through filing of a complaint-affidavit DECISION: Finding no grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondents. under the Constitution. Sec. 1992 for purposes of synchronization of election --Soliven v. houses. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
. and provides for the extension of their term to noon of June 30. -This is negated by the fact that instead of submitting his counter-affidavits. affirmed the resolution of the Secretary of Justice • MAY 16. 1988: On appeal. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. in effect. and to no other persons. 1988: Secretary of Justice denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration • APRIL 7. Second issue This calls for an interpretation of the constitutional provision on the issuance of warrants of arrest: Art. The Order to maintain the status quo contained in the Resolution of the Court en banc is LIFTED. III. RATIO: Background of the first issue • MARCH 30. Makasiar FACTS: This case is a PETITION for certiorari and prohibition to review the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila ISSUES: 1. 1988: Motion for reconsideration was denied by the Executive Secretary Petitioner Beltran alleges that he has been denied due process of law.2. to determine probable clause 3. if any. Laurel. Whether or not the petitioners were denied due process when information for libel were filed against them although the finding of the existence of a prima facie case was still under review by the Secretary of Justice and. he filed a “Motion to Declare Proceedings Closed”. 1988: A second motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Beltran was denied by the Secretary of Justice • MAY 2. subsequently by the President 2. Whether or not the constitutional rights of Beltran (petitioner) were violated when respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally examining the complainant and the witnesses. Aquino and VicePresident Salvador H. the President. through Executive Secretary. Due process of law does not require that the respondent in a criminal case actually file his counter-affidavits before the preliminary investigation is deemed completed. the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petitions. It being a matter of public record and common public knowledge that the
Constitutional Commission refers therein to incumbent President Corazon C. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable.
Petitioner Beltran is convinced that the Constitution requires the judge to personally examine the complainant and his witness in his determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrests. -Court reiterates that it is not a trier of facts And Court finds no basis at this stage to rule on the “chilling effect” point. It is a decision that cannot be assumed and imposed by any other person (And there is nothing in our laws that would prevent the President from waiving the privilege). not by any other person in the President’s behalf. In doing so. -This privilege of immunity from suit. Additional Issue: Beltran contends that he could not be held liable for libel because of the privileged character of the publication. -However. The Respondent filed a complaint against the Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner made unwanted sexual advances towards her when he was the Governor of Arkansas. as by testifying on the witness stand. she may subsequently have to be a witness for the prosecution. she would be exposing herself to possible contempt of court or perjury. which granted certiorari. pertains to the President by virtue of the office and may be invoked only by the holder of the office. The Respondent. Both parties appealed to the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court). the judge shall: (1) Personally evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause (and on the basis. Synopsis of Rule of Law. thereof. or (2) If on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause. The Petitioner filed motions asking the district court to dismiss the case on grounds of presidential immunity and to prohibit the Respondent from re-filing the suit until after the end of his presidency. issue a warrant of arrest). Third issue Petitioner Beltran contends that proceedings ensue by virtue of the President’s filing of her complaint-affidavit. what the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. Paula Jones Corbin (Respondent). but held that no trial would take place until the Petitioner was no longer president. the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witness. bringing her under the trial court’s jurisdiction. He also says that to allow the libel case to proceed would produce a “chilling effect” on press freedom. he may disregard the fiscal’s report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the evidence of probable cause. alleging the Petitioner made unwanted sexual advances towards her when he was the Governor of Arkansas. President Clinton (Petitioner). àThis would in an indirect way defeat her privilege of immunity from suit. Following the established doctrine of procedure. -The choice of whether to exercise the privilege or to waive is solely the President’s prerogative. The United States Constitution (Constitution) does not automatically grant the President of the United States immunity from civil lawsuits based upon his private conduct unrelated to his official duties as President. The district court rejected the presidential immunity argument. --Clinton v Jones Brief Fact Summary. Facts. filed a complaint containing four counts against the Petitioner. Issue. Whether the President can be involved in a lawsuit during his presidency for actions that occurred before the tenure of his presidency and that were not related to official duties of the presidency?
Nov. 22. A sitting President of The United States does not have immunity from civil lawsuits based on the President’s private actions unrelated to his public actions as President. and he informed President Arroyo about the bribery attempt. requiring petitioner to appear and testify on Nov. 2007 – respondents issued the Show Cause Letter requiring him to explain why he should not be cited in contempt. 26 hearing.
. he attended only on the Sept. Sept. but on March 29. Discussion. Sept. 2007. a Letter (Nov.WON President Arroyo followed up the NBN Project . The doctrine of separation of powers does not require federal courts to stay all private actions against the President until he leaves office. It was an abuse of discretion of the District Court to order a stay of this lawsuit until after the President’s tenure. 2007) by Executive Secretary Ermita requested respondents to dispense with petitioner’s testimony on the ground of “executive privilege” that covers above questions. unless supplemented with a constitutionally based requirement that district courts schedule proceedings so as to avoid significant interference with the President’s ongoing discharge of his official responsibilities. 15. however. invoking “executive privilege”: . It is important to recognize that civil lawsuits could significantly interfere with the public duties of an official. 2007 – businessman Jose de Venecia III testified that several high executive officials and power brokers were using their influence to push the approval of the Project initially approved as a Build-Operate-Transfer project.WON she directed him to approve Respondents issued a Subpoena Ad Testificandum. The President of the United States can be involved in a lawsuit during his tenure for actions not related to his official duties as President. 26. He disclosed that COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos offered him P200 Million in exchange for his approval of the project. 2007 – petitioner testified before respondent Committees for 11 hours. The District Court’s decision to order a stay was premature and a lengthy and categorical stay takes no account whatsoever of the Respondent’s interest in bringing the suit to trial. 2007 – DOTC entered into a contract with ZTE for the supply of equipment and services for the NBN Project amounting to P16 Billion. maintaining that the confidentiality of conversations of the President is necessary in the exercise of her executive and policy decision making process and for the protection of the public interest – disclosure of information might impair our diplomatic and economic relations with China. Concurrence. Blue Ribbon Committee April 21. The doctrine of separation of powers is concerned with the allocation of official power among the three co-equal branches of government.Held. 18. NEDA acquiesced to convert it into a government-to-government project to be financed through a loan from the Chinese government. --Neri v. When probed further on what they discussed.WON she directed him to prioritize it . 2007. petitioner refused to answer 3 questions. Affirmed. However. The project was to be financed by the People’s Republic of China Petitioner was summoned by respondents to appear and testify in the investigation on the NBN Project on a number of dates. 20. The concurring judge believed that ordinary case-management principles were likely to prove insufficient to deal with private civil lawsuits.
29.power of judicial review is available – right of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is susceptible to abuse subject to certiorari (Sec. 8. OSG – Motion for Leave to Intervene: . 151. 2008 – President Arroyo issued Memorandum Ciruclar No. existing laws and jurisprudence (Senate v.
. Such power extends to executive officials and exemption can only be through a valid claim of executive privilege. 6 of Constitution – Legislative powers of Congress – relates to the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation – aim is to elicit information that may be used for legislation – can compel the appearance of executive officials *Sec. Art. issued the Order citing him in contempt and ordering his arrest and detention at the Office of the Senate Sergeant-At-Arms until he gives his testimony. 108. Art. 6 of Constitution – Oversight powers of Congress – relates to the power to conduct a question hour – to obtain information in pursuit of Congress’ oversight function – cannot compel the appearance of executive officials *Principle of Separation of Powers .Petitioner was not summoned by respondent in accordance with the power to inquiries in aid of legislation as laid down in Sec. There is a recognized claim of executive privilege despite revocation of EO 464.On Nov. In a letter by his counsel. Concept of executive privilege has constitutional underpinnings. a. . Constitution) Issues and Ratio: 1. advising officials and employees to abide by the Consitution. The parties were directed to manifest to the Court if they were amenable to the Court’s proposal of allowing petitioner to immediately resume his testimony before the respondents to answer other questions without prejudice to the decisions on the merits of this petition Senate disagreed. 21. Ermita) when they are invited to legislative inquiries in aid of legislation. revoking EO 464 and Memorandum Circular N. 30. WON the communications elicited by the 3 questions are covered by Executive Privilege.Communications between petitioner and President are covered by the executive privilege. Constitution and Senate v. and that the conversation with the president dealt with delicate and sensitive national security and diplomatic matters relating to the impact of the bribery scandal. 6. (YES. 2 reasons) *Power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation – broad – legislative cannot legislate wisely/effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect/change compulsory process to enforce it – limitations – validity: done in accordance with the Senate or House duly published rules of procedure and the rights of persons appearing/affected be respected. and without responding to his reply. it was stated that it was upon the order of the President that he did not appear. 21. Jan. 22.executive branch cannot frustrate power of Congress to legislate by refusing to comply with its demands of information . petitioner replied that it was not his intention to ignore the hearing and he thought the only remaining questions were those he claimed to be covered by executive privilege. *Sec. Ermita March 6. 1. Art. 2008 – respondents found petitioner’s explanations unsatisfactory. He further requested to be furnished in advance as to what else he needs to clarify. Art.
People’s right to information is limited by law (RA 6713. Nixon – public interest: preserve confidentiality of conversations that take place in the President’s performance of his official duties (presidential communications privilege) – President’s generalized interest in confidentiality – provide him and those who assist him with freedom to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions. Neri accordingly… The information if disclosed might impair diplomatic and economic relations with People’s Republic of China. 2007) of Executive Secretary Ermita satisfies the requirement for a formal claim of executive privilege (a precise and certain reason for preserving confidentiality). power to grant pardons/reprieves. identity of government informers. It serves as the formal claim of privilege: “this Office is constrained to invoke the settled doctrine of executive privilege (Secretary v. 22. Art. Respondent: the grant of executive privilege violates constitutional provisions on the right of the people to information on matters of public concern (Sec. 6) Respondents: a claim of executive privilege does not guard against a possible disclosure of a crime/wrongdoing (US v Nixon – specific need for evidence in pending criminal trial outweighs President’s interest in confidentiality) SC: information in this case is elicited not in a criminal proceeding but a legislative inquiry. 7. Chavez v. 229. and Rules of Court. diplomatic and other security matters. Sec. appointment/removal power. correspondences in closed-door Cabinet meetings SC: Executive Secretary Ermita premised his claim of executive privilege on the ground that the communications elicited by the 3 questions fall under the conversation and correspondence between the President and public officials necessary in her executive and policy decision-making process – disclosure might impair diplomatic & economic relations with People’s Republic of China (Presidential Communications Privilege and Executive Privilege on matters relating to Diplomacy or Foreign Relations) . and veer more towards exercise of legislative oversight function (Sec. 17. and the Office of the President has advised Sec. Constitution) SC: Petitioner made himself available to them during the Sept. Art. Sec. The information in this case is classified as confidential wherein there is public interest in its confidentiality.communications are received by a close advisor of the President (operational proximity test – petitioner is a member of the cabinet) . Chavez v. The validity of exectuve privilege depends not only on the ground invoked but also on the procedural setting/context which the claim is made. The letter (Nov. RA 3019. b. The officials covered by the former are those functions that form the core of presidential authority that are “quintessential and non-delegable Presidential power” (commander in chief power. Not every legislative inquiry is an exercise of people’s right to information. Rule 130. questioned for 11 hours.” The grounds were specific enough so as not to leave respondent in
. 26 hearing. 3(k). RPC. documents or other materials that reflect presidential decision-making and deliberations which President believes should remain confidential – decision making of the President (separation of powers) (2) Deliberative process privilege – advisory opinions. and expressly manifested willingness to answer more questions except the 3 covered by executive privilege. recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated – decision-making of the Executive Officials (common law privilege). 7.no adequate showing of a compelling need that would justify the limitation of the privilege. No categorical explanation from respondents to show a compelling need for the answers to the questions. information related to pending information and foreign relations. Art.communications relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable power (enter into an executive agreement w/ other countries w/o concurrence w/ Legislature) . 24 (e)). The claim of executive privilege is properly invoked. Ermita). etc) Courts ruled that Executive has a right to withhold documents that might reveal military/state secrets. PCGG – secrets regarding military.US v. 3. Sec. PEA – Presidential conversations. In Re: Sealed Case – 2 kinds of executive privilege: (1) Presidential communications privilege – communications.
Members who did not actually participate in the deliberation were made to sign the contempt Order.The Court finds merit in the argument of the OSG that respondent violated Sec.Respondents’ issuance of the contempt Order were arbitrary and precipitate because it did not pass upon the claim of executive privilege and inform the petitioner of their ruling. YES. American Tel. . both under Sec. Dissent: Puno.There was a legitimate claim of executive privilege therefore the Order suffers from constitutional infirmity . . Compliance is imperative. 6 of Constitution. . WON respondent Committees committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Contempt Order. 6 of the Constitution requiring that the inquiry be in accordance with the “duly published rules of procedure”.the dark on how the requested information could be classified as privileged. Much of this spirit of compromise is reflected in the generality of language foundi n the Constitution (US v. which the respondents failed to meet therefore its hearings were procedurally infirm. Pimentel insisted that the quorum of the committee was only 2 and that the will of the lead committee prevails over all the other.Legislative power of investigation includes power of contempt or process to enforce (Arnault v.Committees did not comply with the requirement (Senate v.The principle of separation of powers is not absolute –a hermetic sealing off of the 3 branches of government from one another would preclude the establishment of a nation capable of governing itself effectively.It is revealed in the transcript that the proceeding on Jan. Respondents denied him due process of law. Ermita) that the invitations should contain the “possible needed statute which prompted the inquiry”. Standard justification: presumed need for new/remedial legislation (investigations in aid of legislation) . . 21. Congress must not require the executive to state the reasons for the claim with such particularity as to compel disclosure of information which the privilege sought to protect – respect to a co-equal department. Sen. . “the usual indication of the subject of inquiry and the questions relative to and in furtherance thereof”. Contempt Order Nullified. J. 5 reasons: . 2008 had only a minority of the members of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee present during the deliberation (7 only). Art. 21 and 22 of Art.). 30.System of checks and balances – the power of congressional oversight – to enhance its understanding of and influence over implementation of legislation it has enacted review/investigation of executive branch action by legislature’s corollary power of investigation. Sec. and its validity is doubted. curtly dismissed his explanation as unsatisfactory and simultaneously issued the Order. & Tel Co. to ensure rights of persons appearing and affected by the inquiry are respected. Judgment: Petition Granted. 18 of the Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation provides that a vote of majority of its members may punish any witness for contempt. Nazareno) – incidental to/implied in legislative function –cannot legislate wisely/effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect/change
. 2. Petitioner was not an unwilling witness and manifested his willingness to testify. Court was also accused of attempting to abandon its constitutional duty when it required parties to consider a proposal that would lead to a possible compromise it was only to test a tool that other jurisdictions find to be effective in settling similar cases to avoid a piecemeal consideration of the questions for review.
In contrast. Internal rules – respect for co-equal branch. .Function Impairment Test – the Court weighs how the disclosure of the withheld information would impair the President’s ability to perform his constitutional duties more than nondisclosure would impair other branch’s ability to perform its constitutional functions.. Existing rules which have already undergone publication should be deemed adopted and continued regardless of election of new members. At the outset. the Senate does not republish its rules especially when the same has not undergone any material change.Presidential communications are presumptively privileged.Petitioner: respondents were seeking to establish the culpability of the President or the anomalies in the NBN-ZTE Contract. We married all these
. There is no basis for petitioner and Executive Secretary to assume that petitioner’s further testimony will be limited only ton the 3 disputed questions. OF HIS DISSENT ON PUNO’S NORTH STAR…] . [SEE ORIG COPY.The boundaries established by the Consti delineating the powers of the 3 branches must be fashioned according to common sense and the necessities of governmental coordination. there must be sufficient showing/demonstration of specific need for the withheld information. 20 hearing. . .Respondent Senate Committees have good reasons in citing Neri for contempt for failing to appear on Nov.The SC cannot assess the validity of the claim of the Executive Secretary because paucity of explanation on on how diplomatic secrets will be exposed at the expense of our national interest if petitioner answers disputed questions.2 requirements for the valid exercise of power of investigation and contempt of witness for contumacy: existence of a legislative purpose (in aid of legislation) and pertinency of the question propounded.Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation is assailed as invalid for failure to be republished – not a continuing body – membership changes every 3 years (election) Senators have traditionally considered the Senate as a continuing body despite the change of part of its membership after an election – does not cease its labor. This Constitutional design requires an internal balancing mechanism by which government powers cannot be abused.The doctrine of executive privilege is tension between disclosure and secrecy in a democracy. .It is self-evident that the assailed questions are pertinent to the subject matter of legislative investigation and have direct relation to the subject and pending Senate bills. the 1987 Consti is replete with provisions on government transparency. SC cannot determine whether there is reasonable danger if petitioner answers – Court cannot engage in guesswork. . custom and practice.Validity of the claim of executive privilege depends on the ground invoked to justify it and the context in which it is made. SC: motive of the Senate Committees in conducting their investigation is beyond the purview of the Court’s power of judicial review – questions are pertinent and there is no effective substitute for the information sought. . . . it is worth noting that the provisions of the US Consti say little about government secrecy or public access. By tradition. 2 standards: evidentiary and constitutional. Committees continue their work. To overcome the presumption. This is a reaction to our years under martial rule when the workings of government were veiled in secrecy. Its doctrinal recognition in the Philippines finds its origin in the US political and legal system and literature. . accountability and disclosure of info. 1ST PAR.
the dual requirements of authority are that the power exercised by the committee must be both within the authority delegated to it and within the competence of Congress to confer upon the committee. So a witness may not be coerced to answer a question that
. we think the investigating committee has the power to require a witness to answer any question pertinent to that inquiry. and the creation. the inquiry must be in aid of legislation. It is presumed that the facts are sought by inquiry. The inquiry. .e. because the legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of info respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change. subject of course to his Constitutional right against selfincrimination. In determining pertinency. Electoral Commission (1936). So under the first requirement. such as the appropriation of public funds. or to expel a Member. The Court (in Arnault v Nazareno) noted that the investigation gave rise to several bills recommended by the Special Committee and approved by the Senate. the pertinency of the question propounded.ideas in Angara v. must be material or necessary to the exercise of a power in it vested by the Consti. a question is pertinent also if it is a usual and necessary stone in the arch of a bridge over which an investigation must go. to be within the jurisdiction of the legislative body to make.There are 2 requirements for the valid exercise of the legislative power of investigation and contempt of witness for contumacy: 1st. viz: Once an inquiry is admitted or established to be within the jurisdiction of a legislative body to make. The test of pertinency is whether a question itself is in the ultimate area of investigation. the court looks to the history of the inquiry as disclosed by the record. regulation and abolition of government agencies and positions. and every question which the investigator is empowered to coerce a witness to answer must be material or pertinent to the subject matter of the inquiry or investigation. Arnault states the rule on pertinency. There is legislative purpose when the subject matter of the inquiry is one over which the legislature can legislate. and 2nd. such as to legislate. i. the existence of a legislative purpose..
Thus. [PUNO WILL THEN DISCUSS HISTORY AND SCOPE & CONTEXT OF EXEC. to disclose sufficient public info on any proposed settlement they had decided to take up with the ostensible owners and holders of ill-gotten wealth. the
. Chavez v PCGG (1998) It was incumbent upon PCGG and its officers.Adjudication on executive privilege in the Philippines is still in its infancy stage. The Founders of the American nation acknowledged an implied Constitutional prerogative of Presidential secrecy. At the same time. PRIVILEGE IN THE US-PLS.The US (and Phil. the materiality of the question must be determined by its direct relation to the subject of the inquiry and not by its indirect relation to any proposed or possible legislation. that the necessity or lack of necessity for legislative action and the form and character of the action itself are determined by the sum total of the info to be gathered as a result of the investigation. and not by a fraction of such info elicited from a single question. must pertain to definite propositions of the government. SEE ORIG] . a power they believed was at times necessary and proper. as well as other gov”t representatives. the Court concluded that the Ombudsman’s need for the documents outweighed the claim of confidentiality of petitioners. In other words. . Such info. The reason is. not necessarily to intra-agency or inter-agency recommendations or communications during the exploratory stage. however.) Consti does not directly mention “executive privilege.obviously has no relation to the subject of the inquiry. But from this it does not follow that every question that may be propounded to a witness be material to any proposed or possible legislation. with the Court having had only a few occasions to resolve cases that directly deal with the privilege: Almonte v Vasquez (1995) No military or diplomatic secrets would be disclosed by the production of records pertaining to the personnel of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau. Nor was there any law making personnel records of the EIIB classified.” but commentators theorized that the privilege of confidentiality is Constitutionally based. as it relates to the President’s effective discharge of executive powers.
US v Nixon came about because of a breakin at the Democratic Nat’l Committee (DNC) headquarters in Watergate Hotel. as he asserted that the President is not subject to the compulsory process of the courts. Issue is WON the President may. President Nixon partially complied with the subpoena. diplomatic or foreign relations. The Court ordered the President or any appropriate subordinate official to show cause why the documents and objects described should not be produced as evidence before the grand jury. police discovered 5 men inside the DNC offices carrying electronic equipment. These men were operating as part of a larger intelligence gathering plan of the Committee to Re-elect the President. withhold from a grand jury evidence in his
. In the early morning of June 17.Court noted the need to observe the same restrictions on disclosure of info in general. Again. the President advised that the tape recordings sought would not be provided. intelligence and other classified info. about 4 ½ months before the US Presidential election. the Court did not have occasion to rule on the same. such as on matters involving national security. The Court ruled that it had jurisdiction to decide the issue of privilege. Their mission was to fix a defective bugging device which had been placed a month before on the telephone of the DNC chairperson. in his sole discretion. Pres Nixon’s campaign organization for the 1972 election. Senate v Ermita (2006) Court again alluded to US v Nixon and also recognized that Presidential communications fall under the mantle of protection of executive privilege in the setting of a legislative inquiry. and it had authority to enforce the subpoena duces tecum by way of an order requiring production for inspection in camera. A subpoena duces tecum was issued requiring Nixon to produce for the grand jury certain tape recordings and documents enumerated in an attached schedule. cameras. but otherwise declined to follow its directives. But since the issue for resolution was the Constitutionality of EO 464 and not whether an actual Presidential communication was covered by the privilege. the subject info did not fall under Presidential communications. and large sums of cash. In a letter to the Court that issued the subpoena. Nixon appealed = Nixon v Sirica. 1972. Their orders came from the higher officials of the CRP. [Start of US v Nixon discussion] .
The District Court. concluded that the Special Prosecutor had made a sufficient showing to rebut the presumption and that the requirements for a subpoena had been satisfied. . 1st is common sense and experience. the US Supreme Court recognized the Presidential communications privilege and the qualified presumption in its favor in US v.
. Nixon. The importance of this confidentiality is too plain to require further discussion. Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decision-making process. claiming executive privilege. The decision cited 2 reasons for the privilege and the qualified presumption: 1) the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid.For the first time in 1974. after treating the subpoenaed material as presumptively privileged. the Nixon Court held that a President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately. General and head of CRP) The Special Prosecutor filed a motion for a subpoena duces tecum for the production before trial of certain tapes and documents relating to precisely identified conversations and meetings of President Nixon. The President. The Special Prosecutor filed in the US Supreme Court a petition for certiorari which upheld the order in US v. Court overruled the President’s invocation of executive privilege covering Presidential communications and upheld the order of the District Court.possession that is relevant to the grand jury's investigations. moved to quash the subpoena. Grand jury investigation = US v Mitchell (Former Atty. The Court then issued an order for an in camera examination of the subpoenaed material. and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decision-making and 2) it is fundamental to the operation of Government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Consti. Nixon. In support of the first reason. It pointed to 2 bases of this need for confidentiality. objective. The 2nd is the supremacy of each branch in its own sphere of duties under the Consti and the privileges flowing from these duties.
As for the second reason. autonomy but reciprocity. . there must be sufficient showing of specific need for the withheld info on the branch of government seeking its disclosure. 2 standards must be met to show the specific need: evidentiary and constitutional. related to the performance of duties. it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. District Court to ensure that these excised parts of the Presidential communications would be accorded that high degree of respect due the President. It was necessary in the public interest to afford Presidential confidentiality the greatest protection consistent with the fair administration of justice.The scope of Presidential communications privilege covers communications in the performance of the President’s responsibilities of his office and made in the process of shaping policies and making decisions. In re Sealed Case -there must also be a showing that evidence is not available with due diligence elsewhere or that the evidence is particularly and apparently useful. the High Court sternly ordered that until released by the judge to the Special
. while the Consti diffuses power to secure liberty. The claim of executive privilege must then be balanced with the specific need for disclosure of the communications on the part of the other branch of government. To overcome this. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence. In the “function impairment test”. the Court weighs how the disclosure of the withheld info would impair the President’s ability to perform his constitutional duties more than nondisclosure would impair the other branch’s ability to perform its constitutional functions.In excising materials that are not relevant or not admissible or covered by executive privilege because of their nature as military or diplomatic secrets. the High Court emphasized the heavy responsibility of the D. admissibility and specificity. A President's communications and activities encompass a vastly wider range of sensitive material than would be true of any ordinary individual.C. . US v Nixon -relevance.There is a qualified presumption in favor of Presidential privacy. . considering the singularly unique role under of a President’s communications and activities. Thus.
. cannot expand the grounds invoked by the President through Sec Ermita.The function impairment test begins with recognition that Presidential communications are presumptively privileged.Prosecutor.The Presidential communications privilege attaches to the office of the President. no in camera material be revealed to anyone.” still. In his letter. which has a greater chilling effect on rendering candid opinions. But even assuming arguendo that petitioner Neri can properly invoke the privilege covering “national security” and “military affairs. the Court should proceed to determine the strength of this presumption as it varies in light of various factors. and that the excised material be restored to its privileged status and returned under seal to its lawful custodian. the greater the need for confidentiality and the stronger the presumption. himself or through his counsel. whether contemporaneous disclosure or open deliberation. it is used after careful consideration in order to uphold public interest in the confidentiality and effectiveness of Presidential decision-making to benefit the Office of the President. suggested a claim of diplomatic secrets privilege. petitioner. the records will show that he failed to provide the Court knowledge of the circumstances with which the Court can determine whether there is reasonable danger that his answers to the 3 disputed questions would indeed divulge secrets that would compromise our national security. namely: (1) time of disclosure. Sec Ermita invoked only the Presidential communication privilege and.Given the qualified presumption in favor of the confidentiality of Presidential communications. The more concentrated power is in the President.Senate v. . as opposed to subsequent disclosure. can invoke executive privilege. [end of US v Nixon discussion] . Ermita: only the President or the Executive Secretary. (2) level of detail. . Thus. Other factors to be considered in determining the strength of the presumption of confidentiality of Presidential communications pertain to the nature of the disclosure sought. Senate Committees’ argument that the burden is on petitioner to overcome a presumption against executive privilege cannot be sustained. by order of the President. It is not to be used to personally benefit the person occupying the office. whether full texts or whole
and there is no effective substitute for the info coming from a reply to these questions.conversations or summaries. . but is shared with the Monetary Board (Central Bank). which is narrow. We take judicial notice also of the fact that in a Senate inquiry. The power to contract foreign loans is a power not exclusively vested in the President. These questions are pertinent to the subject matter of their investigation. (4) certainty of disclosure. whether involving military. whether live testimony or recorded conversation or affidavit. There is also no effective substitute for the info sought. We also consider the chilling effect which may result from the disclosure of the info sought from petitioner Neri but this is diminished by the nature of the info sought. diplomatic or national security secrets.On one end of the balancing scale is the President’s generalized claim of confidentiality of her communications. On the other end of the balancing scale is the respondent Committees’ specific and demonstrated need for the Presidential communications in reply to the 3 questions. Presidential communications enjoy a presumptive privilege but this is weakened by the fact that the subject of the communication involves a contract with a foreign loan. whether the general public or a select few. military and national security secrets. and (6) form of disclosure. but also to the pending bills thereat. the questions to petitioner have direct relation not only to the subject of the inquiry. The type of info should also be considered. In the absence of the info they seek. More than the Arnault standards. (3) audience. and petitioner’s failure to justify a claim that his conversations with the President involve diplomatic. the Senate Committees’ function of intelligently enacting laws “to remedy what is called ‘dysfunctional procurement system of the government’” and
.It is self-evident that the 3 assailed questions are pertinent to the subject matter of the legislative investigation being undertaken by the respondent Committees. (5) frequency of disclosure. The 3 questions demand info on how the President herself weighed options and the factors she considered in concluding the NBNZTE Contract. limited as it is to the 3 questions. whether the info is made public as a matter of course or upon request . there are safeguards against an indiscriminate conduct of investigation. .
or otherwise purge himself of that contempt. as he had exhaustively testified on the subject matter of the inquiry. . by a vote of a majority of all its members. It is worth noting that the letter of Sec Ermita merely requested that petitioner’s testimony on Nov 20. With all these considerations factored into the equation. 2007. may punish for contempt any witness before it who disobeys any order of the Committee or refuses to be sworn or to testify or to answer a proper question by the Committee or any of its members. Even assuming arguendo that ex-officio members are counted in the determination of a
. 18.Section 18 of the Senate Rules Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation provides. respondent Committees have good reasons in citing Neri for contempt for failing to appear in the Nov 20 hearing. But there is no basis for either petitioner or the Exec Sec to assume that petitioner’s further testimony will be limited to the 3 questions. . Such witness may be ordered by the Committee to be detained in such place as it may designate under the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms until he agrees to produce the required documents. Contempt. We should not put the cart before the horse. or testifying. testifies falsely or evasively. viz: Sec.The Committee.The legislative purpose of the Senate inquiry and pertinence of the questions propounded has sufficiently been shown. 2007 on the NBN Contract be dispensed with. Contempt of the Committee shall be deemed contempt of the Senate. we have to strike the balance in favor of the respondent Senate Committees and compel petitioner Neri to answer the 3 questions.to possibly include “executive agreements for Senate concurrence” to prevent them from being used to circumvent the requirement of public bidding in the existing Government Procurement Reform Act cannot but be seriously impaired. [VALIDITY OF CONTEMPT AND ARREST ORDER] . Needless to state.As to respondent Committees’ contention that executive privilege cannot be used to hide a wrongdoing: It is after the privilege has been pierced by a demonstrated need that one can discover WON the privilege was used to shield a wrongdoing. . or to be sworn or to testify. Executive privilege was invoked only with respect to the 3 questions Neri refused to answer in his testimony before respondent Committees on Sep 26.
thus constituting an exception to the right to information and the policy of full disclosure of matters that are of public concern like the JPEPA. therefore. as all the ex-officio members signed the Order of arrest. For as Senate v. political and economic decision making. the respondent Committees did not abuse their discretion in issuing the Jan 30. are recognized as privileged in this jurisdiction. not merely the text of the JPEPA. Wherein petitioners were seeking information from the President’s representatives on the state of the then on-going negotiations
. The Supreme Court Ruled that Diplomatic negotiations. the Supreme Court ruled that t]he principal relief petitioners are praying for is the disclosure of the contents of the JPEPA prior to its finalization between the two States parties. as congresspersons. because petitioners seek to obtain. --Akbayan v. however. The petition is not entirely moot. It bears emphasis. Moving on to the second issue. That the nondisclosure of the same documents undermines their right to effective and reasonable participation in all levels of social. citizens and taxpayers. recognizing a type of information as privileged does not mean that it will be considered privileged in all instances. the majority requirement for each of the respondent Senate Committees was still satisfied. The court adopted also the doctrine in PMPF v. requesting respondents to submit to them the full text of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA). the petition has become moot and academic to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of the “full text” thereof. Aquino FACTS: Petition for mandamus and prohibition was filed by the petitioners. Issue: Whether or not the petition has been entirely rendered moot and academic because of the subsequent event that occurred? Whether the information sought by the petitioners are of public concern and are still covered by the doctrine of executive privilege? Held: On the first issue. The substantive and procedural requirements for issuing an Order of arrest having been met. Only after a consideration of the context in which the claim is made may it be determined if there is a public interest that calls for the disclosure of the desired information. Petitioner emphasize that the refusal of the government to disclose the said agreement violates there right to information on matters of public concern and of public interest. The text of the JPEPA having then been made accessible to the public. 2008 Order of arrest of petitioner. That diplomatic negotiation are covered by the doctrine of executive privilege. the JPEPA negotiations constituting no exception. Respondent herein invoke executive privilege. but also the Philippine and Japanese offers in the course of the negotiations.majority vote. Manglapus. however. strong enough to overcome its traditionally privileged status. They relied on the ground that the matter sought involves a diplomatic negotiation then in progress. that such privilege is only presumptive. has been largely rendered moot and academic. Ermita holds. during the pendency of the present petition.” public disclosure of the text of the JPEPA after its signing by the President.
enough of the attending circumstances to invoke the doctrine. Then and now. We referred to and analyzed events that were prior. It merely allows the plaintiff to present along with the proof of the accident. As will be discussed below. as well pointed out . Indeed. taken with the surrounding circumstances. Desierto Facts: Petitioner insists he is the victim of prejudicial publicity. To be sure. On January 20. courts ascertain intent in criminal cases. creating an inference or presumption of negligence and to thereby place on the defendant the burden of going forward with the proof. we used the totality test to arrive at the conclusion that petitioner has resigned. --Estrada v. Teehankee. the fact of the occurrence of an injury. to resolve this issue. or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case. Everyday. The Court denied the petition. We used the Angara Diary to decipher the intent to resign on the part of the petitioner. in commercial cases involving contracts and in other similar cases. It is true that the print and broadcast media gave the case at bar pervasive publicity. stressing that “secrecy of negotiations with foreign countries is not violative of the constitutional provisions of freedom of speech or of the press nor of the freedom of access to information. and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation. responsible reporting enhances an accused’s right to a fair trial for. the use of the Angara Diary is not prohibited by the hearsay rule. to the cases at bar. a rule usually applied only in tort cases. Among others. just like all high profile and high stake criminal trials. he assails the Decision for adverting to newspaper accounts of the events and occurrences to reach the conclusion that he has resigned. may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence. there is no court in the whole world that has applied the res ipsa loquitur rule to resolve the issue of prejudicial publicity. 2001 contemporaneous to the oath taking of respondent Arroyo. In our Decision. We reiterate the test we laid down in People v. It is not a rule of substantive law but more a procedural rule. Petitioner may disagree with some of the inferences arrived at by the Court from the facts narrated in the Diary but that does not make the Diary inadmissible as evidence. Let it be emphasized that it is not unusual for courts to distill a person’s subjective intent from the evidence before them. Issue: Whether petitioner can invoke res ipso loquitur rule to resolve the issue of prejudicial publicity? Held: Petitioner pleads that we apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing or the transaction speaks for itself) to support his argument.of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement. We hold that it is inappropriate to apply the rule on res ipsa loquitur. a responsible press
. All these events are facts which are well-established and cannot be refuted. Its mere invocation does not exempt the plaintiff with the requirement of proof to prove negligence. in civil law cases involving last wills and testaments. We again stress that the issue before us is whether the alleged pervasive publicity of the cases against the petitioner has prejudiced the minds of the members of the panel of investigators. we rule that the right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press. viz: “The court cannot sustain appellant’s claim that he was denied the right to impartial trial due to prejudicial publicity. contemporaneous and posterior to the oath-taking of respondent Arroyo as president. Under the res ipsa loquitur rule in its broad sense.
has always been regarded as the handmaiden of effective judicial administration. Such expose ignited several reactions of rage. WON Estrada is only temporarily unable to act as President 1. --Estrada v. Ilocos Sur Governor Chavit Singson accused the petitioner and his family of receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords. WON Estrada enjoys immunity from suit 1. The Monday after the oath. the respondent as vicepresident. 1. A short outline of events that precipitated the case at bar thus follows: 1. January 20 was the day of petitioner's surrender. WON the cases at bar present a justiciable controversy / political question specifically in regard the legitimacy of the Arroyo administration 1.
. Criminal cases have been filed against the petitioner after he stepped down into presidency. 1. On October 4. In November 20 Impeachment Trial of the petitioner was opened. 1. The press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police. the president to the vice president becoming the acting president 1. 1. prosecutors. 2000. At 12:00 noon Chief Justice Hilario Davide administered oath to respondent Arroyo as President of the Philippines. There became a built up of a call for petitioner to resign from office and his officials one by one resigned withdrawing their support. At 2:30 pm petitioner left Malacanang and issued a press statement and a letter transmitting the executive power upon him. Petitioner won in the May 1998 national elections as president. 2. WON the prosecution of petitioner Estrada should be enjoined due to prejudicial publicity HELD: The petitions of Joseph Ejercito Estrada challenging the respondent Gloria MacapagalArroyo as the de jure 14th President of the Republic are DISMISSED. Arroyo discharged powers of the President. 1. especially in the criminal field. January 19 people lined up in EDSA showing a greater call for the resignation of the president. Arroyo FACTS: This involves petitions of Joseph Ejercito Estrada challenging the respondent Gloria MacapagalArroyo as the de jure 14th President of the Republic. WON Estrada merely resigned as President 1. and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism. 1. ISSUES: There are several important issues sprouting in this case. in December 7 Impeachment Trial began.
" This was proof petitioner had reconciled himself to the reality that he had to resign. which decided that the legitimacy of Aquino administration in question was a political question. There is a legal distinction between EDSA People Power I and EDSA People Power II. The Freedom Constitution declared that Aquino's government was a result a successful peaceful revolution by the sovereign Filipino people. that she has exercised the powers of the presidency and that she has been recognized by foreign governments. EDSA I involves the exercise of the people power of revolution which overthrew the whole government. At first. SC read the case Lawyers League vs Pres. Angie (Reyes) guaranteed that I would have five days to a week in the palace. that she has already taken her oath as the 14th President of the Republic. hence a political question. emphasizing that he would not be a candidate. Using the TOTALITY TEST. It can be written. The question on the legitimacy of the Arroyo administration is subject to judicial review. contemporaneous and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on the issue.m. Aquino. whether or not petitioner resigned has to be determined from his act and omissions before. during and after January 20. it must be given legal effect. In contrast." Estrada did not object to this suggestion but stated that he would never leave the country. It was held that Estrada has resigned as President. it presented then a political question. he said to Angara "Ed. As long as the resignation is clear. 2001 or by the totality of prior. presenting a legal and justiciable question." an authoritative window to the state of mind of the petitioner was provided. it can be said that acquisition of the presidential seat of respondent Arroyo would be similar to that of former President Corazon Aquino as they were placed into position by means of the call of the people in a revolutionary mass demonstration known as EDSA I for Aquino. which is justiciable. he was even advised to have a "dignified exit or resignation. It can be express. As his support from his officials were withdrawn. 8 of 1987 Constitution. At 10:00 p. VII Sec. It was said that there must be intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment. Estrada became concerned with peaceful and
. It can be implied. 2:30 pm he proposed for a snap election for president in May. Estrada was held to have resigned as President. 2001 when respondent took her oath as the 14th President of the Public in view of Art. It is a legal question. On January 20. His mind was already concerned with the fiveday grace period he could stay in the palace. In the diary of Executive Secretary Eduardo Angara called "Final Days of Joseph Ejercito Estrada. EDSA II is an exercise of people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances which only affected the office of the President. Consequently. There was public pressure for petitioner to resign. 1. This is an indication that he intended to give up the presidency even at that time. Arroyo's government was not revolutionary in character.1. Arroyo swore under the 1987 Constitution. It can be oral. the grounds of the case show that such is a political question. There is no formal requirement as to form of a valid resignation. The issue was whether the petitioner resigned as President or should he be considered resigned as of January 20. and EDSA II for Arroyo. Intent to Resign. It has been stressed by private respondents that Arroyo ascended the presidency through people power. Consequently.
magtulungan tayo para magkaroon tayo ng (let's cooperate to ensure a) peaceful and orderly transfer of power. the seat of the presidency. both houses of Congress have recognized respondent Arroyo as the President. 175." The resignation of the petitioner was implied. Congress has clearly rejected petitioner's claim of temporary inability. (1) he acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President of the Republic albeit with reservation about its legality. if not in session. he was referring to the past opportunity given him to serve the people as President (4) he assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in the same service of our country." "If the Congress. the President shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office" The operative facts concerning this issue are: *Petitioner. Without doubt. his final act of farewell. respondent Arroyo took her oath of office as President on January 20. The law which concerned this issue was Article VII Sec.11 which provides in part: "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.. voting separately. *Unaware of the letter. Implicitly clear in that recognition is the premise that the inability of petitioner Estrada is no longer temporary. otherwise. that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Petitioner's reference is to a future challenge after occupying the office of the president which he has given up. He did not say he was leaving the Palace due to any kind inability and that he was going to re-assume the presidency as soon as the disability disappears: (3) he expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them. within twelve days after it is required to assemble. 2001. from the given facts. In the press release containing his final statement before he and his family left Malacanang. and (5) he called on his supporters to join him in the promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. or. 1. and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary.m. the House of Representatives passed on January 24. (2) he emphasized he was leaving the Palace. for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of our nation.
. the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. 176 a resolution expressing the support of the house of representatives to the assumption into office by Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Republic of the Philippines. Certainly. Clearly. His presidency is now in the past tense. Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. 2001 House Resolution No. on January 20. 2001. adopted January 24. the national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity could not be attained if he did not give up the presidency.orderly transfer of power when he told Angara ""Ed. The Court has no jurisdiction to review the temporary inability and to revise thereafter the decision of both houses of Congress recognizing Arroyo as President because this question involves the Legislature's discretionary authority. The press release was petitioner's valedictory. *Despite receipt of the letter. within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration. the Vice-President shall act as President. 2001 at about 12:30 p. Acts of Relinquishment. determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses. followed by House Resolution No. sent letter claiming inability to the Senate President and Speaker of the House. such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President.
. The evidence given by petitioner that Ombudsman has been biased by the pervasive prejudicial publicity against him was insubstantial. Hence the impeachment tribunal and proceeding has ceased.1. he can be tried for civil and criminal charges filed against him. He stated that the respondent Ombudsman has developed bias and is all set file the criminal cases violation of his right to due process. as a non-sitting President. His claim that he must the
impeachment proceeding must first be decided before civil or criminal prosecution begin is untenable for he has been considered resigned from office. It was held that there was not enough evidence to warrant the Court to enjoin the preliminary investigation of the petitioner by the respondent Ombudsman. Hence. Petitioner contended that the respondent Ombudsman should be stopped from conducting the investigation of the cases filed against him due to the barrage of prejudicial publicity on his guilt.
It was held the Estrada is not immune for liability.