Estrada v. Desierto (2001); Puno, J.
Digest writer: Dodot
Petitioner1: Joseph E. Estrada
Respondents1: Aniano Desierto, in his capacity as Ombudsman, Ramon Gonzales, Volunteers Against Grime and
Corruption, Graft Free Philippines Foundation, Inc., Leonard de Vera, Dennis Funa, Romeo Capulong and Ernesto B.
Francisco, Jr.
Petitioner2: Joseph E. Estrada
Respondent2: Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Concept: Hearsay
Brief Facts: From the expose of Chavit Singson, the Presidency of Estrada suffered a downward spiral, leading to
impeachment proceedings against him and culminating in EDSA II and the ascension to the Presidency of Arroyo. In
the aftermath, the Ombudsman set in motion several cases that had been filed against Estrada while the latter had
been President. Estrada filed a petition for prohibition to enjoin the Ombudsman from proceeding with the cases as
well as a petition for quo warranto to confirm him as the President of the Philippines with Arroyo only allegedly
discharging the office in an acting capacity. The SC dismissed the petitions. The SC held that Estrada had in
fact resigned (using the Totality Test) and that there was no longer any bars to the investigations against
him pending before the Ombudsman.
Doctrine: [Note that there were no express holdings in the case regarding hearsay, but in order to support its ruling
that Estrada had in fact resigned, the SC relied on entries in the diary of then-Executive Secretary Enrile, which
contained statements allegedly made by Estrada in the days leading up to his leaving Malacanang.]
FACTS:
Antecedents
1.
11 May 1998 Elections: Joseph Ejercito Estrada (ESTRADA) elected President; Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (ARROYO)
elected Vice-President.
1.1. Both terms to commece 30 June 1998.
2. 4 October 2000: Luis Chavit Singson (SINGSON) accused Estrada, his family, and his friends of
receiving millions from jueteng lords.
2.1. After Senator Guingona, Jr.s I Accuse speech, Senate President Drilon referred the matter to the Blue Ribbon
Committee (headed by Senator Pimentel) and the Committee on Justice (headed by Senator Cayetano) for
joint invesetigation.
2.2. The House of Representatives House Committee on Public Order and Security (headed by Rep. Golez)
investigated the matter; at the same time, Reps. Alvarez, Herrera, and Defensor spearheaded the move to
impeach President Estrada.
2.3. Other civil and political leaders sought the Presidents resignation, among whom were Archbishop Sin, and
former Presidents Aquino and Ramos.
2.4. Vice-President Arroyo resigned as Secretary of the DSWD and also asked for President Estradas resignation.
2.5. Other government officials followed: senior economic advisers from the Council of Economic Advisers; the
Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry (Roxas).
2.6. Senate President Drilon and House Speaker Villar along with 47 reps. defected from Lapian ng Masang
Pilipino.
3. 13 November 2000: House Speaker Villar transmitted the Articles of Impeachment signed by 115
members (more than 1/3 of all the members).
4. 20 November 2000: The Senate formally opened the impeachment trial of President Estrada, with Chief
Justice Davide, Jr. presiding.
4.1. 16 January 2001: The Senator-Judges ruled against the opening of the 2 nd envelope which allegedly contained
evidence showing that President Estrada held P3.3B in a secret bank account under the name Jose Velarde.
4.1.1. The Public and Private Prosecutors walked out in protest;
4.1.2. Senator Pimentel who had since replaced Drilon resigned as Senate President.
5. By midnight of that day, thousands had assembled as the EDSA Shrine.
6. 19 January 2001: President Estradas fall from power appeared inevitable.
6.1. 1:20p: President Estrada informed Executive Secretary Angara that General Angelo Reyes, the Chief of Staff of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, had defected.
6.2. 2:30p: President Estrada agreed to the holding of a snap election for President, where he would not be a
candidate this did not diffuse the crisis.
6.3. 3p: Secretary of National Defense Mercado and General Reyes with the chiefs of all the armed services
went to the EDSA Shrine.
6.3.1. General Reyes announced that they were withdrawing support to the government.
6.4. PNP Chief Director General Panfilo Lacson and the major service commanders game a similar announcement.
6.5. Some Cabinet Secretaries, USecs, ASecs, and bureau chiefs resigned.
7.
20 January 2001: negotiations for the peaceful and orderly transfer of power began.
7.1. For President Estrada: Executive Secretary Edgardo Angara, Senior Deputy Executive Secretary Ramon
Bagatsing, Political Adviser Angelito Banay, Assistant Secretary Boying Remulla, and Atty. Macel Fernandez
(head of the PMS).
7.2. For Vice-President Arroyo: now-Executive Secretary Renato De Villa, now-Secretary of Finance Alberto Romulo,
and now-Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez.
8. 12nn, 20 January 2001: Chief Justice Davide, Jr. administered the oath to Arroyo as President of the
Philippines.
8.1. It was later revealed in Administrative Matter No. 01-1-05-SC, issued on 22 January 2001, that the Supreme
Court acting on the urgent request of then-Vice President Arroyo had resolved unanimously to confirm the
authority given by the 12 members then present to the Chief Justice to administer the oath of office.
9. 2:30p, 20 January 2001: Estrada and his family left Malacanang.
9.1. Estrada issued a press statement declaring that while he had strong and serious doubts about
the legality and constitutionality of Arroyos proclamation, he was leaving Malacanang for the
sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of the nation.
9.2. He ended the 2nd paragraph by saying, I leave the Palace of our people with gratitude for the opportunities
given to me for service to our people. I will not shirk from any future challenges that may come ahead in the
same service of our country.
10. That same day, it appeared that Estrada signed a letter stating, By virtue of the provisions of Section 11,
Article VII of the Constitution, I am hereby transmitting this declaration that I am unable to exercise
the powers and duties of my office. By operation of law and the Constitution, the Vice-President shall
be the Acting President.
10.1.
This letter was sent to then-Speaker Fuentebella 8:30a, 20 January 2001; Senate President Pimentel
received a copy of the same at 9:00p.
11. 22 January 2001: President Arroyo immediately discharged the powers and duties of the President.
11.1.
She appointed members of her cabinet, as well as ambassadors and special envoys;
11.2.
Foreign governments recognized the Arroyo government;
11.2.1. 23 January 2001: more than a hundred foreign diplomats recognized the Arroyo Government;
11.2.2. US President Bush gave President Arroyo a phone call from the White House conveying US recognition
of her government.
11.3.
24 January 2001: Rep Feliciano Belmonte was elected new Speaker of the House.
11.3.1. The House of Representatives passed Resolution No. 175, expressing the full support of the House of
Representatives to the administration of Her Excellency Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the
Philippines.
11.3.2. It also approved Resolution No. 176, expressing the support of the House of Representatives to the
assumption into office by Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Republic of the
Philippines
11.4.
26 January 2001: President Arroyo signed the Solid Waste Management Act into law; and, a few days
later, signed the Political Advertising Ban and Fair Election Practices Act into law.
11.5.
6 February 2001: President Arroyo nominated Senator Guingona, Jr. as her Vice-President.
11.5.1. 7 February 2001: The Senate adopted Resolution No. 82 confirming the nomination.
11.5.1.1.
Senators Defensor-Santiago, Enrile, and Osmena voted YES with reservations citing as
reason therefor the challenge on the legitimacy of President Arroyos presidency pending before the
SC.
11.5.2. The House of Reps. Also approved the nomination in Resolution No. 178.
11.5.3. Senator Guingona subsequently took his oath as Vice-President 2 days later.
12. 7 February 2001: The Senate passed Resolution No. 83 declaring that the impeachment court is functus
officio and had been terminated.
13. Various surveys showed high public acceptance of President Arroyo:
13.1.
Pulse Asia: up from 16% on 20 January 2001 to 38% on 26 January 2001;
13.2.
ABS-CBN/SWS: from 207 February 2001, 61% of Filipinos nationwide accepted Arroyo as replacement
of Estrada;
13.2.1. Her trust rating increased to 52%;
13.2.2. Her presidency was accepted by majorities in all social classes.
The Case
14. Several cases previously filed against Estrada in the Office of the Ombudsman were set in motion:
14.1.
Bribery and Graft and Corruption (OMB Case No. 0-00-1629);
14.2.
Plunder, Forfeiture, Graft and Corruption, Bribery, Perjury, Serious Misconduct, Violation of the Code of
Conduct for Government Employees, etc. (OMB Case No. 0-00-1754);
14.3.
Plunder, Forfeiture, Graft and Corruption, Bribery, Perjury, Serious Misconduct (OMB Case No. 0-001755);
14.4.
Malversation of Public Funds, Illegal Use of Public Funds and Property, Plunder, Etc. (OMB Case No. 000-1756);
14.5.
Bribery, Plunder, Indirect Bribery, violation of PD 1602, PD 1829, PD 46, and RA 7080 (OMB Case No. 000-1757); and,
14.6.
Plunder, Graft and Corruption (OMB Case No. 0-00-1758).
15. A special panel of investigators was created by the Ombudsman to investigate the charges.
15.1.
22 January 2001: The Panel Issued an Order directing Estrada to file his counter-affidavit and
the affidavits of his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents in answer to the
complaints against him.
16. 5 February 2001: Estrada filed with the SC a petition for prohibition with a prayer for a writ of
preliminary injunction.
16.1.
The petition sought to enjoin the Ombudsman from conducting any further proceedings vis--vis the
cases, or in any other criminal complaint that may be filed in his office UNTIL or AFTER the term of Estrada
as PRESIDENT is over, and only if legally warranted.
17. 6 February 2001: Estrada filed a separate petition for Quo Warranto.
17.1.
Estrada prayed for judgment confirming him to be the lawful and incumbent President, temporarily
unable to discharge the duties of his office; and, declaring Arroyo to have taken her oath as and to be holding
the Office of the President, ONLY IN AN ACTING CAPACITY.
18. 13 February 2001: The Supreme Court ordered the consolidation of the petitions and the filing of the
respondents comments.
19. 15 February 2001: The consolidated cases were orally argued, with CJ Davide, Jr. and J. Panganiban recusing
themselves on motion of Estradas counsel, former Senator Saguisag.
20. 20 February 2001: on the urgent motion filed by counsel for Estrada, the SC issued a resolution
20.1.
Informing the parties that the Court did not issue a reso. On 20 January 2001 declaring the office of the
President vacant;
20.2.
Ordering the parties/counsels to refrain from making any comment or discussing in public the merit of
the cases, under pain of being cited in contempt;
20.3.
Issuing a 30-day status quo order enjoining the Ombudsman from resolving or deciding the criminal
cases pending investigation.
21. 24 February 2001: The Parties filed their replies; the cases were deemed submitted for decision.
ISSUE:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Do the petitions present a justiciable controversy? (YES.)
Assuming they do, is Estrada a President on leave while Arroyo is an Acting President? (NO.)
2.1. ***RELEVANCE: note that the basis of the SC in concluding that Estrada had indeed resigned was thenExecutive Secretary Angaras diaries which contained statements allegedly made by Estrada.***
Did Estrada just temporarily leave office? (NO.)
Is conviction in the impeachment proceedings a condition precedent for the criminal prosecution of Estrada? (NO.)
4.1. In the negative, and on the assumption that Estrada is still President, is he immune from criminal prosecution?
(NO.)
Should the prosecution of Estrada be enjoined on the ground of prejudicial publicity? (NO.)
RATIO:
1. The issues present LEGAL QUESTIONS.
Respondents contention: cases pose a POLITICAL QUESTION thus, they are beyond the jurisdiction of the SC.
President Arroyo ascended through people power;
She had already taken her oath as the 14th President of the Republic;
She had already exercised the powers of the Presidency;
She had already been recognized by foreign government.
SC: the political question doctrine rests on the principle of separation of powers and on prudential considerations.
Test: Baker v Carr (J. Brennan, SCOTUS)
o a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;
or,
o a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or,
o the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial
discretions; or,
o the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect
due coordinate branches of government; or,
o an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or,
o the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on
question.
Tanada v. Cuenco (CJ Concepcion, SC)
o Political questions refer "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."
1987 Constitution: narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine (GAD).
o Note Art. VII, Sec. 18: SC empowered to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation
of martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, or the extension thereof.
SC: Lawyers League for a Better Philippines and/or Oliver A. Lozano v. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al. and related
cases cases cited by the respondents are INAPPLICABLE.
Cited cases: SC held that the government of President Aquino was the result of a successful REVOLUTION by
the sovereign people.
o Note: the Freedom Constitution itself declared that the government had been installed in defiance of
the provisions of the 1973 Constitution, as amended.
o EDSA I: extra constitutional the legitimacy of the new government cannot be the subject of judicial
review. (Political Question)
o EDSA I: people power of revolution overthrew the WHOLE government.
Arroyos government is NOT revolutionary in character.
o President Arroyo took her oath under the 1987 Constitution she categorically swore to preserve and
defend the 1987 Constitution and has stressed that she is discharging the powers of the Presidency
under the authority of the 1987 Constitution.
o EDSA II: intra constitutional the resignation of the sitting President that it caused and the succession
of the Vice-President as President are subject to judicial review. (Legal Question)
o EDSA II: people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the government for
redress of grievances ONLY affected the Office of the President.
Principal issues for resolution require the proper interpretation of certain provisions in the 1987 Constitution:
Art. II, Sec. 1; Art. VII, Sec. 8; Art. VII, Sec. 11;
Issues also call for a ruling on the scope of presidential immunity from suit; correct calibration of right of
Estrada against prejudicial publicity.
2. By the totality test, Estrada had resigned as President.
Estrada: Denies that he resigned as President, or that he suffers from permanent disability.
Office of the President was NOT vacant when Arroyo took her oath.
On resignation
SC: note Art. VII, Sec. 81.
SC: Resignation is NOT a high level abtraction it is a factial question
Its elements are beyond quibble.
o Intent to resign; and,
o Intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment.
Validity of a resignation is NOT governed by any formal requirement as to form: it can be oral or written; it can
be express or implied as long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect.
TOTALITY TEST: whether or not Estrada resigned has to be determined from his acts and omissions before, during,
and after 20 January 2001, or by the totality of prior, contemporaneous, and posterior facts and
circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on the issue.
This test had to be applied since the facts show that Estrada did NOT write any formal letter of resignation.
Resignation: applied to the case at bar
SC: Using the totality test, Estrada resigned as President.
***NOTE: basis was what Angara said about what Estrada had said.***
According to the SC, the authoritative window on the STATE OF MIND of Estrada as events approached 20 January was
provided in the Final Days of Joseph Ejercito Estrada, the diary of then-Executive Secretary Angara, serialized in the
Philippine Daily Inquirer.
19 January: Estradas loyal advisers were worried about the swelling of the crowd at EDSA.
o 1:20p: Estrada pulled Angara into his small office at the presidential residence and exclaimed: Ed,
seryoso na ito. Kumalas na si Angelo (Reyes).
o 2:30p: Estrada decided to call for a snap presidential election and stressed he would not be a
candidate.
SC: This is an indicium that Estrada had intended to give up the Presidency even at
that time.
1 Sec. 8. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office or resignation of the President, the Vice President shall become the President to
serve the unexpired term. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President and Vice President, the
President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then acts as President until President or Vice
President shall have been elected and qualified.
x x x.
3p: With the withdrawal of the support of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Estrada was left weak as
a President Angara asked Senator Pimentel to advise Estrada to consider the option of dignified
exit or resignation Estrada did not disagree but listened intently.
o 9:30p: Senator Pimentel repeated the urgency of making a graceful and dignified exit and added that
Estrada would be allowed to go abroad with enough funds to support him and his family Estrada
expressed no objection to the suggestion for a graceful and dignified exit but said he
would never leave the country.
o 10p: Estrada revealed to Angara, Ed, Angie (Reyes) guaranteed that I would have five days to a week
in the palace.
SC: Proof that Estrada had reconciled himself to the reality that he had to resign
his mind was already concerned with the 5-day grace period he could stay in the
palace.
It was a matter of time.
o 11p: Former President Ramos called Angara and requested, Ed, magtulungan tayo para magkaroon
tayo ng (let's cooperate to ensure a) peaceful and orderly transfer of power there was no defiance
to the request, Angara readily agreed.
SC: The problem was already about a peaceful and orderly transfer of power.
The resignation of Estrada was implied.
12:20a, 20 January 2001: first negotiation for a peaceful and orderly transfer of power.
o Negotiation limited to 3 points:
Transition period of 5 days after Estradas resignation;
Guarantee of the safety of Estrada and his family; and,
Agreement to open the 2nd evelope to vindicate the name of Estrada.
o SC: Resignation of Estrada was NOT a disputed point.
Estrada CANNOT feign ignorance of this fact.
o 2:30a, Estrada was briefed by Angara on the 3 points.
Estrada stressed that he just wants the 5-day period and the opening of the 2 nd envelope, to
clear his name.
He promised that if the envelope was opened on Monday, he would leave by
Monday.
Quoting Estrada, Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko na masyado nang masakit. Pagod na
ako sa red tape, bureaucracy, intriga. I just want to clear my name then I will go.
o SC: The intent to resign is clear when Estrada said, x x x Ayoko na masyado nang masakit.
SC: Ayoko na are words of resignation.
7:30a, 20 January 2001: second round of negotiations.
o According to Angara, Arroyos representatives arrived (including her then-spokesperson Rene Corona).
o The Negotiating Points stipulated that Estrada would sign a resignation document within the day,
which would be effective on 24 January 2001 on which day Arroyo would assume the Presidency of
the Republic; that beginning that day the transition process would commence, that officials to be
appointed by Arroyo would start their orientation activities in coordination with the incumbents; that
the AFP and the PNP would function under then-Vice-President Arroyo; that the AFP would guarantee
the security of Estrada and his family; and, that the Senate would open the 2 nd envelope, pursuant to
the request of the Senate President.
o SC: The second round cements the reading that Estrada had resigned during this round,
the resignation of Estrada was treated as a given fact.
o However, although agreement was signed by Estradas side and was ready to be faxed to General
Reyes and Senator Pimentel, to await the signature of the United Opposition this was aborted by
Arroyos oath-taking.
Angara instructed that the first provision on resignation be deleted since this matter
is already moot and academic the document was rushed for signatures of the other side,
with Angara noting that it was important for the provision on security to at least be respected.
o During lunch, Puno mentions that the President needs to release a final statement before leaving
Malacanang. (See FACTS, 9.1)
o
SC: resignation of Estrada cannot be doubted confirmed by his leaving Malacanang.
In the press release:
o Acknowledged the oath-taking of Arroyo as President albeit with the reservation about its
legality;
o Emphasized that he was leaving the seat of the Presidency, for the sake of peace and in order to begin
the healing process;
He did NOT say that he was leaving the Palace due to any kind of inability and the
he was going to re-assume the Presidency as soon as the disability disappeared;
o Expressed gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them.
No doubt, referring to the PAST OPPORTUNITY given to him to serve the people as President;
o Assured that he would not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in the same service of
the country;
Estradas reference is to a future challenge after occupying the Office of the President,
which he has given up;
o Called on his supporters to join him in the promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation
and solidarity.
These could NOT be attained if he did not give up the presidency.
SC: the press release was Estradas valedictory, his final act of farewell his Presidency was now
in the past tense.
On whether Estrada only took a temporary leave of office due to his inability to givern
(See FACTS, 10)
SC: it strikes the Court as strange that the letter was never referred to by Estrada during the week-long crisis.
Not the slightest hint of its existence when Estrada issued is final press release.
SC: under any circumstance, the letter cannot negate the resignation of the petitioner.
If prepared BEFORE the press release: the resignation must prevail as a later act.
If prepared AFTER the press release: commands scant legal significance.
o Estradas resignation from the Presidency CANNOT be the subject of a changing caprice
nor of a whimsical will especially if the resignation is the result of his repudiation by the
people.
On whether Sec. 12, RA 30192 prohibited Estradas resignation
SC: intent of the law ought to be obvious it is to prevent the act of resignation/retirement from being used by a public
official as a protective shield to stop the investigation of a pending criminal or administrative case against him, and to
prevent his prosecution under the Anti-Graft Law or prosecution for bribery under the Revised Penal Code.
He cannot use his resignation or retirement to avoid prosecution.
SC: moreover, Sec. 12 cannot be invoked by Estrada for it contemplates cases whose investigation or prosecution don
NOT suffer from any insuperable legal obstacle like the immunity from suit of a sitting President.
Estrada: impeachment proceeding is an ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION under Sec. 12, RA 3019, barred him from
resigning.
SC: even assuming arguendo that it is an administrative proceeding it can not be considered PENDING at the
time Estrada resigned the process already broke down when a majority of the senator-judges voted against
the opening of the second envelope, the public and private prosecutors walked out, the public prosecutors filed
their Manifestation of Withdrawal of Appearance, and the proceedings were postponed indefinitely.
o No impeachment case pending against Estrada when he resigned.
3. Both houses of Congress already recognized Arroyo as the president implicit in which is the premise
that the inability of Estrada was no longer temporary.
SC: both houses of Congress have recognized Arroyo as the President. (See FACTS: various resolutions passed by each
house.)
Implicitly clear in that recognition: premise that the inability of Estrada is no longer temporary Congress has
clearly rejected Estradas claim of inability.
Following Tanada v. Cuenco, the Court CANNOT exercise its judicial power this is an issue in regard to which
full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislative xxx branch of the government.
o The question is POLITICAL IN NATURE and ADDRESSED SOLELY TO CONGRESS by Constitutional fiat.
(See Art. VII, Sec. 11)
4. Estrada does not enjoy immunity.
Estrada:
Cases filed against him before the Ombudsman should be prohibited because he has NOT been convicted in
the impeachment proceedings against him; and,
He enjoys immunity from ALL kinds of suit criminal or civil.
SC: lack of conviction in impeachment proceedings NOT a bar.
ConCom debates: clear that when impeachment proceedings have become moot due to the resignation of the
President the proper criminal and civil cases may be filed against him.
2 Sec. 12. No public officer shall be allowed to resign or retire pending an investigation,
criminal or administrative, or pending a prosecution against him, for any offense under
this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery.
In accord with In re: Saturnino Bermudez: incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or from being
brought to court during the period of their incumbency and tenure but not beyond.
Note that the impeachment proceedings had been declared as functus officio.
o
SC: Cases filed against Estrada CANNOT be covered by the alleged mantle of immunity of a non-sitting President
anomalous to hold that immunity is an inoculation from liability for UNLAWFUL ACTS AND OMISSIONS.
Rule: unlawful acts of public officials are NOT acts of the State; the officer who acts illegally is NOT acting as
such but stands in the same footing as any other trespasser.
One of the themes of the 1987 Constitution: a public office is a public trust.
o Maintained the Sandiganbayan as an Anti-Graft Court;
o Created the office of the Ombudsman and endowed it with enormous powers.
5. The contention of prejudicial publicity is unsubstantiated
Martelino, et al. v. Alejandro, et al.: to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity there must be allegation and proof that
the judges had been unduly influenced not simply that they might be, by the barrage of publicity.
SC: Applying the ruling, there is not enough evidence to warrant the SC to enjoin the preliminary investigation of
Estrada by the Ombudsman.
Note: cases against Estrada are still undergoing preliminary investigation by a special panel of prosecutors
no allegation whatsoever has been made by Estrada that the minds of the members of that panel have already
been infected by bias.
o The special panel has yet to come out with its findings.
Although Estrada charged the Ombudsman himself with being biased, the evidence proffered by Estrada is
insubstantial.
o Accuracy of news reports referred to by Estrada CANNOT be the subject of judicial notice by the SC
especially in light of the denials of the Ombudsman as to his alleged prejudice, and the presumption of
good faith and regularity in the performance of official duty to which he is entitled.
DISPOSITIVE: IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petitions of Joseph Ejercito Estrada challenging the respondent Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo as the de jure 14th President of the Republic are DISMISSED.
