8/22/23, 4:26 PM Estrada v.

Desierto – Legit Digest

Legit Digest

Estrada v. Desierto
Legit Digest 21 Apr 2022 Political Law
Law on Public Officers, Presidential Immunity, Removal of Officers, Resignation of President

JOSEPH ESTRADA v. ANIANO DESIERTO,

et.al.
G.R. No. 146710-15, 02 March 2001
Puno, J.

DOCTRINE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – In a resignation, there must be an intent to resign, and that

intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment. The validity of a resignation is not
government by any formal requirements as to form since it can be oral or written,
expressed or implied. So long as the resignation is clear, the same act must be given legal
effect.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Presidential immunity was granted only during the term of
the President in order to prevent delay in actions on important matters by the Chief
Executive due to litigations that may be lodged against him. The said immunity does not
apply beyond the term of the President.

FACTS

https://legitdigest.wordpress.com/2022/04/21/estrada-v-desierto/ 1/4
8/22/23, 4:26 PM Estrada v. Desierto – Legit Digest

After the people’s clamor in EDSA for him to resign from 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 the nation warped by confusion
due to his impeachment trial. Nevertheless, he sent a letter to the Senate President and
the Speaker of the House stating that he is temporarily unable to perform the duties of
the office of the President and let then Vice-President Respondent Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo assume the position of Acting President.

Adve rtisements

Discounts on
the Latest Tech
Discover the latest tech and
gadgets available in Cyberzone

SM Deals
REPORT THIS AD

Later, the Office of the Ombudsman filed plunder and perjury charges against the
Petitioner. A special panel of prosecutors were assigned to investigate the charges
against the Petitioner. Thus, the Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition before the
Supreme Court. He alleged that he cannot be criminally charged by the Ombudsman on
the ground of immunity from suit. He claimed that he is still the President of the
Philippines, and that Respondent is merely holding the position in an acting capacity.
Further, he claimed that he cannot be considered as to have resigned because he is
prohibited by law from resigning since he was under an investigation, i.e. an
impeachment trial.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the Petitioner resigned as President.

2. Whether or not the Petitioner was temporarily incapable of exercising the Presidency.
3. Whether or not the Petitioner is immune from suit, and if so, up to what extent.

RULING

https://legitdigest.wordpress.com/2022/04/21/estrada-v-desierto/ 2/4
8/22/23, 4:26 PM Estrada v. Desierto – Legit Digest

1. YES. The Supreme Court ruled that in a resignation, there must be an intent to resign,
and that intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment. The validity of a resignation
is not government by any formal requirements as to form since it can be oral or written,
expressed or implied. So long as the resignation is clear, the same act must be given legal
effect.

In the present case, it was established the Petitioner resigned from his position as
President of the Philippines. According to the Angara Diary, which serialized the final
days of the Petitioner in Malacañang Palace, the Petitioner made pronouncements which
was interpreted as intention of giving up the position such as when he proposed a snap
election where he would not be a candidate; non-defiance to the request of a peaceful
and orderly transfer of power; prior agreement to the transfer of power with conditions
as to the state of the Petitioner and his family; and the issuance of a statement wherein
the Petitioner leaves the palace, the seat of the Presidency, for the sake and peace and
order. Hence, the resignation of the Petitioner was implied by his actions to leave the
Presidency.

2. NO. The Court ruled that it is not within its jurisdiction to review whether the
Petitioner was temporarily incapable of exercising the Presidency for being political in
nature, and addressed solely to Congress, as provided in the Constitution. Even if the
Petitioner can prove that he did not resign, the Petitioner cannot successfully claim that
he was merely on leave because Congress recognized the Respondent as the de
jure president, which cannot be reviewed by the Court without violating the principle of
separation of powers.

In the present case, both Houses of Congress recognized the Respondent as the
President when they issued Resolutions to the said effect. Further, both Houses issued a
Resolution approving the selection and appoint of Sen. Teofisto Guingona as Vice-
President. Further, finally, both Houses started sending bills to be signed into law by the
Respondent. Hence, the Petitioner was not temporarily incapable to exercise the
Presidency because he resigned as President, and Houses of Congress already
recognized the legitimacy of the Respondent.

3. NO. The Court held that presidential immunity was granted only during the term of
the President in order to prevent delay in actions on important matters by the Chief
Executive due to litigations that may be lodged against him. The said immunity does not
apply beyond the term of the President.

In the present case, the Petitioner cannot claim that he cannot be sued before the
Ombudsman because he was immune from suit. In fact, the Petitioner cannot cite any
decision that the President has post-tenure immunity from liability. Further, the
Petitioner cannot claim that he is immune from suit because he was not convicted by the
Impeachment Court. To allow such situation will put a perpetual bar against his

https://legitdigest.wordpress.com/2022/04/21/estrada-v-desierto/ 3/4
8/22/23, 4:26 PM Estrada v. Desierto – Legit Digest

prosecution, which were criminal in nature. Hence, the Petitioner is not immune from
suit.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

Petitions are DISMISSED.

Legit Digest 21 Apr 2022 Political Law

Law on Public Officers, Presidential Immunity, Removal of Officers, Resignation of President

Leave a Reply
Enter your comment here...

Legit Digest, Website Powered by WordPress.com.

https://legitdigest.wordpress.com/2022/04/21/estrada-v-desierto/ 4/4