RESOLUTION

;
ESTRADA V DESIERTO
PUNO;
FACTS
- Nature: Writ of Preliminary Injunction against complaints against Estrada until his term is over.
- May 11, 1998 ~ Estrada was elected President; Arroyo was VP; some 10 million Filipinos voted
for Estrada and both Estrada and Arroyo were to serve a 6-year term.
- Oct. 4, 2000 ~ Estrada's "sharp decent from power" began; Chavit Singson, Estrada's long time
friend, publicly accused Estrada, Estrada's family and friends of
receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords.
- Oct. 5, 2000~ Sen. Teofisto Guingona Jr. delivered a speech entitled "I ACCUSE" wherein he
accused Estrada of receiving 220 million pesos worth of jueteng money
from Gov. Singson from November 1998 till August 200 and obtained another 70 million peson on
excise tax still from Gov. Singson.
- The privilege speech was referred by Sen. Drilon to the Blue Ribbon Committee and the
Committee on Justice for joint investigation.
- The House of Reps also decided to investigate the expose of Gov. Singson.
- Reps. Heherson Alvarez, Ernesto Herrera and Michael Defensor spearheaded the move to
impeach Estrada.
- Oct. 11, 2000 ~ Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin issued a pastoral statement asking Estrada to
step down from the presidency as he had lost the moral authority to govern
- Oct. 13, 2000~ CBCP also cried out for Estrada's resignation
- Oct. 17, 2000~ Former Pres. Aquino joined the calls for resignation and former Pres. Ramos
joined the chorus as well
.
- But before that, on Oct 12, Arroyo already resigned as DSWD Secretary and also asked for
Estrada's resignation but Estrada really held on to his office and refused to
resign.
- November ended with a "big-bang" because on November 13, House Speaker Manuel Villar
transmitted the Articles of Impeachment (which was based on the
grounds of bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the
Constitution) signed by 115 representatives to the Senate.
- Nov. 20, 2000~ Senate finally opened the impeachment trial. 21 senators took their oath as
judges with SC Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr, presiding.
- Dec. 7, 2000~ The impeachment trial started.
- Dramatic point of the December hearings was the testimony of Clarissa Ocampo, the SVP of
Equitable-PCI BANK. Ocampo testified that she was one foot away from Estrada when he affixed
the signature "Jose Velarde" on documents involving a 500 million pesos investment account with
their bank on Feb 4 2000.

> Jan. 16, 2001~ with a vote of 11-10, the Senator judges ruled against opening the 2nd envelope
which allegedly contained evidence showing that petitioner held 3.3 billion pesos in a secret bank
account under the name "Jose Velarde."
> In short, this resulted to what we know as "EDSA II"
- January 19, 2001~ withdrawal of support from the Armed Forces, PNP and mass resignations
ensued
- Jan 20, 2001~ Estrada surrendered. At 12 nn, CJ Davide administered the oath to Arroyo as the
President of the Philippines.
> Estrada left Malacaang and issued a press statement saying that he now leaves Malacaang
Palace for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of our nation.
> He also wrote a letter saying that the VP shall be the acting president and said letter was
transmitted to former Speaker Fuentebella and Sen. Pres. Pimentel.
- Jan 21, 2001~ Arroyo discharged the powers and duties of the Presidency. The SC issued a
resolution, which confirmed the authority given by the 12 members of the
Court then present to the Chief Justice to administer the oath of office to GMA.
- Jan. 24, 2001~ Despite the receipt of Estrada's letter, House of Reps. passed House Resolution
No. 175 experiencing full support to GMA's administration and also HR no. 176.
- Feb 7, 2001~ Despite receipt of Estrada's letter claiming inability, Senate passed Resolution No.
82 confirming GMA's nomination of Teofisto Guingona as VP
and the Senate's support of the new gov't. and also in the same date, Senate passed Res. No. 83
recognizing that the impeachment court is functus offictio.
ISSUES
1. WON the petitions present a justiciable controversy
2. WON the petitioner resigned as president
3. WON the petitioner is only temporarily unable to act
as president
4. WON the petitioner enjoys immunity from suit (and
assuming he enjoys immunity, the extent of the
immunity)
5. WON the prosecution of petitioner Estrada should be
enjoined due to prejudicial publicity.
HELD
1. The Court shall consider as justiciable the issue of WON the change in the presidency was
done in the manner prescribed by the 1987 Constitution. (In this part, the ponente differentiated
EDSA I from EDSA II saying that EDSA I was a revolution, change of presidency was done extraconstitutionally whereas EDSA II was not a revolution, the change was done to an element of the
government only and it was done intra-constitutionally because GMA swore to uphold or protect
the 1987 Constitution.
2. The Court held that resignation shall be determined from the totality of prior, contemporaneous
and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing a
material relevance on the issue. (In relation to this, see Art. VII, Section 8)
3. The Court held that the question WON it may review and revise the decision of both Houses of
Congress recognizing GMA as the de jure President of the Philippines is a political one.

(Congress has laid Estrada's claim of inability to rest because of its recognition of GMA as
president. The issue is a political question and the Court cannot review Congress' decision
without violating the principle of separation of powers.)
4. The Court held that the President enjoys immunity only during his tenure.
5. The Court shall rule that to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must be allegation
and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced by the
barrage of publicity.
Decision
The petitions of Joseph E. Estrada challenging the respondent Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo as the
de jure14th President of the Republic are DISMISSED.