Estrada v DesiertoGR Nos.

146710-15, March 2, 2001

Ponente : Puno, J.

IV. Whether the prosecution of petitioner Estrada should be

enjoined on the ground of prejudicial publicity

Facts :
1. In 1998, Joseph Estrada was elected President of the
Philippines, while Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo was elected VicePresident. The president was accused with corruption,
culminating in Ilocos Sur Governor ChavitSingsons
accusations that the president received millions of pesos from
jueteng lords.
2. The Senate and the House of Representatives began early
investigations regarding the accusation, while key sociopolitical figures like Cardinal Sin, former Presidents Aquino and
Ramos, the vice president, senior advisers and cabinet
members called on the president to resign, and resigned from
their cabinet posts themselves.
3. The impeachment trial began on 7 December 2000, with 21
senator-judges presided over by Chief Justice HilarioDavide. At
a point when 11 senator-judges ruled against opening a
second envelope of evidence showing the presidents P3.3
billion bank account under the name Jose Velarde, the public
prosecutors resigned and a mass demonstration at EDSA
began.
4. CJ Davide granted Senator Raul Rocos motion to postpone
the impeachment trial until the House of Representatives
resolved the lack of public prosecutors.
5. With the defection of more officials and of the army and
police from the Estrada administration, the president
attempted to appease public sentiment by announcing a snap
election and by allowing the second envelope to be opened.
The measures failed, and the calls for resignation
strengthened.
6. On 20 January 2001, the president negotiated with
representatives of the vice-president. News broke out that
Chief Justice HilarioDavide would administer the oath of
presidency to the vice president at EDSA Shrine. Estrada
issued two statements - one stating reservations on the
constitutionality of Arroyos presidency, and another stating
that he is incapable of dispensing his responsibilities as
president, thus allowing Arroyo to be the acting president.
7. The Arroyo administration was met with acceptance by the
different branches of government, by majority of the public,
and by the international community. The impeachment trial
was closed, despite sentiments such as those of Senator
Defensor- Santiago that the impeachment court had failed to
resolve the case, leaving open questions regarding Estradas
qualifications to run for other elected posts.
8. The Office of the Ombudsman proceeded to file a series of
cases regarding the corruption of Estrada. Estrada filed a
motion compelling the Ombudsman to refrain from further
proceedings until his term as president was over. He also filed
a petition to be confirmed as the lawful and incumbent
president, temporarily unable to fulfill his duties, thus making
Arroyo an acting president only.

Ruling:
I. The petitions present a justiciable controversy because the
cases at bar pose legal, and not political, questions. Hence,
the cases are within the jurisdiction of the Court to decide.
Definition of political questions: ...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 government. --Former CJ
Roberto Concepcion
Arroyos government is NOT revolutionary in
character, since her oath was taken under the 1987
Constitution.
EDSA II is an exercise of people power of freedom
of speech and the right to assembly. It is intra constitutional in
this regard (within the scope of the Constitution). The
resignation of Estrada that it caused and the subsequent
succession of of Arroyo are subject to judicial review. II.
Estrada is NOT a President on leave while Arroyo is Acting
President.
Under Section 11 Article VII, Estrada says that only
Congress has the ultimate authority to determine whether the
President is incapable of performing his functions in the
manner provided by said provision.
Hence, Arroyo has no power to judge Estradas
inability to do his job as President.
However, both houses of Congress expressed their
recognition and support of Arroyo as the new President, and it
is implicitly clear in this recognition that Estradas inability is
no longer temporary. Thus, Congress has rejected Estradas
claim of inability.
Furthermore, Court cannot exercise its judicial
power to revise decision of Congress in recognizing Arroyo. To
do so would be to transgress principle of separation of powers,
since this is a political issue. III. Estrada contends that he has
not been convicted in the impeachment case and that he
enjoys immunity from all kinds of suit.

Executive immunity provision of 1973 Constitution

was no longer included in the 1986 Constitution. This is in
accordance with SC ruling in In Re: Saturnino Bermudez that
incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or from being
brought to court during the period of their incumbency and
tenure but not beyond.

9. The Supreme Court ruled a) to inform the parties that they

did not declare the Office of the President vacant on 20
January 2001, b) to prohibit either party from discussing in

When the president has resigned, then proper

criminal and civil cases may already be filed against him IV.
Estrada argued that respondent Ombudsman should be
stopped from conducting the investigation of the cases filed
against him because of prejudicial publicity on his guilt, and
that respondent has also developed bias.

public the merits of the case while in its pendency, c) to enjoin

the Ombudsman from resolving pending criminal cases
against Estrada for 30 days.

In People v Teehankee, Jr. and Larranaga v Court of

Appeals it was laid down that the right of an accused to a fair
trial is not incompatible to a free press. Responsible press.

Issues:

Our judges are smart enough to know the law and

to disregard camera drama and off-court evidence. Their
exposure to media does not affect their impartiality.

I. Whether the petitions present a justiciable controversy.

II. Assuming that the petitions present a justiciable
controversy, whether petitioner Estrada is a President on
leave while respondent Arroyo is an Acting President.
III. Whether conviction in the impeachment proceedings is a
condition precedent for the criminal prosecution of petitioner
Estrada. In the negative and on the assumption that petitioner
is still president, whether he is immune from criminal
prosecution.

Case Digest: Estrada v Desierto

Facts
After Estradas impeachment proceedings were aborted and his resignation from the Presidential post, a cluster of legal
problems started appearing. Several cases previously filed against him in the Office of the Ombudsman were set in
motion including among others, bribery and graft and corruption, plunder, perjury, serious miscounduct, malversation
of public funds, illegal use of public funds. A special panel of investigators was forthwith created by the respondent
Ombudsman to investigate the charges against the petitioner.Petitioner filed with this Court a petition for prohibition
with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. It sought to enjoin the respondent Ombudsman from conducting any
further proceedings in any other criminal complaint that may be filed in his office, until after the term of petitioner as
President is over and only if legally warranted Petitioner also contends that the respondent Ombudsman should be
stopped from conducting the investigation of the cases filed against him due to the barrage of prejudicial publicity on
his guilt. He submits that the respondent Ombudsman has developed bias and is all set to file the criminal cases in
violation of his right to due process.
Issue:

Whether or not the prosecution of petitioner Estrada should be enjoined due to prejudicial publicity

Held
No. Then and now, we now rule that the right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press. To be
sure, responsible reporting enhances an accuseds right to a fair trial for, as well pointed out, a responsible press has
always been regarded as the handmaiden of effective judicial administration, especially in the criminal field x x x. The
press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the
police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism.
Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. The mere fact that the trial of
appellant was given a day-to-day, gavel-to-gavel coverage does not by itself prove that the publicity so permeated the
mind of the trial judge and impaired his impartiality. Our judges are learned in the law and trained to disregard offcourt evidence and on-camera performances of parties to a litigation. Their mere exposure to publications and
publicity stunts does not per se fatally infect their impartiality.
At best, appellant can only conjure possibility of prejudice on the part of the trial judge due to the barrage of publicity
that characterized the investigation and trial of the case. To warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must be
allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be, by the barrage of
publicity. In the case at bar, the records do not show that the trial judge developed actual bias against appellant as a
consequence of the extensive media coverage of the pre-trial and trial of his case. The totality of circumstances of the
case does not prove that the trial judge acquired a fixed opinion as a result of prejudicial publicity which is incapable of
change even by evidence presented during the trial. Appellant has the burden to prove this actual bias and he has not
discharged the burden. The court recognizes that pervasive and prejudicial publicity under certain circumstances can
deprive an accused of his due process right to fair trial.However,petitioner needs to show more weighty social science
evidence to successfully prove the impaired capacity of a judge to render a bias-free decision. Thus the petition was
dismissed.