G.R. No. 146738 Estrada vs.

Arroyo
G.R. No 146710-15 Estrada vs. Desierto
March 2, 2001
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 October 2000, Ilocos Sur governor Luis Chavit Singson, a close friend of the President, alleged that
he had personally given Estrada money as payoff from jueteng hidden in a bank account known as
Jose Velarde a grassroots-based numbers game. Singsons allegation also caused controversy
across the nation, which culminated in the House of Representatives filing of an impeachment case
against Estrada on November 13, 2000. House Speaker Manny Villar fast-tracked the impeachment
complaint. The impeachment suit was brought to the Senate and an impeachment court was formed,
with Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. as presiding officer. Estrada, pleaded not guilty.
The expos immediately ignited reactions of rage. On January 18, a crowd continued to grow at EDSA,
bolstered by students from private schools and left-wing organizations. Activists from the group Bayan
and Akbayan as well as lawyers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and other bar associations
joined in the thousands of protesters.
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.
OnJanuary 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 Malacaang Palace.
A heap of cases then succeeded Estradas leaving the palace, which he countered by filing a peition for
prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. 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 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 petitioner may invokeimmunity from suits.

HELD:
The Court defines a political issue as 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.
The Court made a distinction between the Aquino presidency and the Arroyo presidency.
The Court said that while the Aquino government was a government spawned by the direct
demand of the people in defiance to the 1973 Constitution, overthrowing the old
government entirely, the Arroyo government on the other hand was a government
exercising under the 1987 constitution, wherein only the office of the president was
affected. In the former, it The question of whether the previous president (president
Estrada) truly resigned subjects it to judicial review. The Court held that the issue is legal
and not political.
For the president to be deemed as having resigned, there must be an intent to resign and the
intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment. It is important to follow the succession of
events that struck petitioner prior his leaving the palace. Furthermore, the quoted statements
extracted from the Angara diaries, detailed Estradas implied resignation On top of all these, the press
release he issued regarding is 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 a material

relevance on the issue.
As to the issue of the peitioners contention that he is immuned from suits, the Court held that
petitioner is no longer entitled to absolute immunity from suit. The Court added that, given the intent
of the 1987 Constitution to breathe life to 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).