Estrada vs Desierto G.R. No. 146710-15; Estrada vs Arroyo G.R. No. 146738, March 2 2001
[Immunity from Suit; Resignation of the President; Justiciable controversy]
FACTS:
It began in October 2000 when allegations of wrong doings
involving bribe-taking, illegal gambling, and other forms of corruption were
made against Estrada before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. On November 13,
2000, Estrada was impeached by the Hor and, on December 7, impeachment proceedings
were begun in the Senate during which more serious allegations of graft and
corruption against Estrada were made and
were only stopped on January 16, 2001 when 11 senators, sympathetic to the
President, succeeded in suppressing damaging evidence against Estrada. As a
result, the impeachment trial was thrown into an uproar as the entire
prosecution panel walked out and Senate President Pimentel resigned after
casting his vote against Estrada.
On January 19, PNP and the AFP also withdrew their support
for Estrada and joined the crowd at EDSA Shrine. Estrada called 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, SC declared that the seat of presidency was vacant, saying that Estrada
“constructively resigned his post”. At noon, Arroyo took her oath of office in the presence of the crowd at EDSA
as the 14th President. Estrada and his family later left Malacañang Palace.
Erap, after his fall, filed petition for prohibition with prayer for WPI. It
sought to enjoin the respondent Ombudsman from “conducting any further
proceedings in cases filed against him not until his term as president ends. He
also prayed for judgment “confirming Estrada to be the lawful and incumbent
President of the Republic of the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge
the duties of his office.
ISSUE(S):
1. WoN the petition presents a justiciable controversy.
1. WoN the petition presents a justiciable controversy.
2. WoN Estrada resigned as President.
3. WoN Arroyo is only an acting President.
4. WoN the President enjoys immunity from suit.
5. WoN the prosecution of Estrada should be enjoined due to
prejudicial publicity.
RULING:
1. Political questions- "to 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."
Legal distinction between EDSA People Power I EDSA People
Power II:
|
EDSA I
|
EDSA II
|
|
exercise of the people power of revolution which
overthrew the whole government.
|
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.
|
|
extra constitutional and the
legitimacy of the new government that resulted from it cannot be the subject
of judicial review
|
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.
|
|
presented a political question;
|
involves legal questions.
|
The cases at bar pose legal and not political questions. The
principal issues for resolution require the proper interpretation of certain
provisions in the 1987 Constitution: Sec 1 of Art II, and Sec 8 of Art VII, and
the allocation of governmental powers under Sec 11 of Art VII. The issues
likewise call for a ruling on the scope of presidential immunity from suit.
They also involve the correct calibration of the right of petitioner against
prejudicial publicity.
2. Elements of valid resignation: (a)an intent to resign and
(b) acts of relinquishment. Both were present when President Estrada left the
Palace.
Totality of prior contemporaneous posterior facts and
circumstantial evidence— bearing material relevant issues—President Estrada is
deemed to have resigned— constructive resignation.
SC declared that the resignation of President Estrada could
not be doubted as confirmed by his leaving Malacañan Palace. In the press
release containing his final statement:
1. He acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as
President;
2. He emphasized he was leaving the Palace for the sake of
peace and in order to begin the healing process (he did not say that he was
leaving due to any kind of disability and that he was going to reassume the
Presidency as soon as the disability disappears);
3. He expressed his gratitude to the people for the
opportunity to serve them as President (without doubt referring to the past
opportunity);
4. He assured that he will not shirk from any future
challenge that may come in the same service of the country;
5. He called on his supporters to join him in promotion of a
constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity.
Intent to resign—must be accompanied by act of
relinquishment—act or omission before, during and after January 20, 2001.
3. The Congress passed House Resolution No. 176 expressly
stating its support to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Republic of
the Philippines and subsequently passed H.R. 178 confirms the nomination of
Teofisto T. Guingona Jr. As Vice President. Senate passed HR No. 83 declaring the Impeachment Courts as
Functius Officio and has been terminated. It is clear is that both houses of
Congress recognized Arroyo as the President. Implicitly clear in that recognition
is the premise that the inability of Estrada is no longer temporary as the Congress
has clearly rejected his claim of inability.
The Court therefore cannot exercise its judicial power for
this is political in nature and addressed solely to Congress by constitutional
fiat. In fine, even if Estrada 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
Arroyo is the de jure, president made by a co-equal branch of government cannot
be reviewed by this Court.
4. The cases filed against Estrada are criminal in
character. They involve plunder, bribery and graft and corruption. By no
stretch of the imagination can these crimes, especially plunder which carries
the death penalty, be covered by the alleged mantle of immunity of a
non-sitting president. He cannot cite any decision of this Court
licensing the President to commit criminal acts and wrapping him with
post-tenure immunity from liability. The rule is that unlawful acts of public
officials are not acts of the State and the officer who acts illegally is not
acting as such but stands in the same footing as any trespasser.
5. No. Case law will tell us that a right to a fair trial and the
free press are incompatible. Also, since our
justice system does not use the jury system, the judge, who is a learned and
legally enlightened individual, cannot be easily manipulated by mere publicity.
The Court also said that Estrada did not present enough evidence to show that
the publicity given the trial has influenced the judge so as to render the
judge unable to perform. Finally, the Court said that the cases against Estrada
were still undergoing preliminary investigation, so the publicity of the case
would really have no permanent effect on the judge and that the prosecutor
should be more concerned with justice and less with prosecution.
