JOSEPH ESTRADA VS ANIANO DESIERTO, March 2, 2002

G.R No. 146710-15

Doctrine,

In a resignation there must be an intent to resign, and that intent must be coupled by acts
relinquishment, the validity of resignation is not government by formal requirements as to form
since it can be oral and written. Expressed or implied so long as the resignation is clear, the
same act must be given effect.

Facts

After peoples clamor in edsa for him to resign in his position, petitioner Joseph Estrada issued a
statement that he will be leaving the Malacañang Palace in order to have a peaceful transition
of power and start the healing of nation wrapped by confusion due to his impeachment trial.
Nevertheless he sent a letter to the senate president of and speaker of the house stating that he
shall temporarily unable to perform the duties of the office of the president ang let VP Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo assumed the position of Acting President.

Later the office of ombudsman filed plunder and perjury charges against the petitioner. A special
panel of prosecutor were assigned to investigate the charges against the petitioner. Thus the
petitioner filed petition for prohibition before the supreme court. He alleged that he cannot be
criminally charge by the ombudsman on the ground for immunity of suit. The Latter claimed that
he is the still the president and the respondent is merely holding the position in acting capacity.
He claimed that he cannot be considered resigned because he is prohibtted by law from
resigning since he was under investigation, i.e impeachement trial.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the petioner resined as president.

2. Whether or not the petitioner was temporary incapable of excercising the presidency.
3. Whether or not the petioner is immune from suit and if so, up to what extent.

Ruling

1. YES. The supreme court held that in a resignation there must be intent to resign and that
intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment. The validity of resignation is not
government by formal requirements as to from since it can be oral or written, express or
implied. So long as the resignation is clear the same act must be given legal effect.

In the present case it was established that the petitioner resigned from his position from
his position as the president. According to Angarra Diary which serialized the final days
of the latter in the Malacañang. The Petitioner made pronouncement which was
interpreted as he proposed a snap election, where he could not be a candidate; non-
defiance to the peaceful and orderly transfer of power.

Hence: the resignation of the petitioner is implied by his actions.

2. No. The court ruled that it is not within the jurisdiction to review the petitioner was
temporarily incapable of excercising presidency for being political in nature, and address
solely to congress as provided in the constitution. Even if the petitioner can proved that
he did not resign, the petitioner cannot successfully claim that he was merely on-leave
because the congress recognized the RESPONDEND (Pres. Gloria M Aroyo) as the de
Jure President , which cannot be reviewed by the court violating the principle of
separation of powers.

Hence: the latter WAS NOT temporarily incapable to exercise the presidency because
he resigned as president and the house of congress recognized the legitimacy of the
Respondent (PGMA)
 3. No. the court held that presidential immunity was granted only during the term of the
President in order to prevent delay in action on the important matters due to litigation.
The immunity does not apply beyond the term of the president. In the present case both
houses of the congress recognized the respondent and the president when they issued
a resolution to the effect.

In the present case the petitioner cannot claim that he cannot be sued before the
ombudsman. Because he was immune from the suit. In fact the petitioner cannot cite
any decision that the president gas post-tenure immunity from liability. Further the
petitioner cannot claimed that he was immune from suit because he was not convicted
by the impeachment court.

legal distinction between EDSA People Power I EDSA People Power II is clear. EDSA
I involves the exercise of the people power of revolution which overthrew the whole
government. 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. EDSA I is extra
constitutional and the legitimacy of the new government that resulted from it cannot be
the subject of judicial review, but EDSA II is intra constitutional and the resignation of
the sitting President that it caused and the succession of the Vice President as
President are subject to judicial review. EDSA I presented a political question; EDSA
II involves legal questions. A brief discourse on freedom of speech and of the
freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress of grievance which are
the cutting edge of EDSA People Power II is not inappropriate.