Estrada vs Desierto, 353 SCRA 452

Case Title

GR No. 146710-15 / March 2, 2001

Justice Puno
Ponente

Facts:
In the May 11, 1998 elections, petitioner Joseph Estrada was elected President while respondent
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was elected Vice-President. From the beginning of his term, however,
petitioner was plagued by problems that slowly eroded his popularity. On October 4, 2000, Ilocos
Sur Governor Chavit Singson, a longtime friend of the petitioner, accused the petitioner, his family
and friends of receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords. The expose’ immediately ignited
reactions of rage. On November 13, 2000, House Speaker Villar transmitted the Articles of
Impeachment signed by 115 representatives or more than 1/3 of all the members of the House of
Representatives to the Senate. On November 20, 2000, the Senate formally opened the
impeachment trial of the petitioner. On January 16, 2001, by a vote of 11-10, the senator-judges
ruled against the opening of the second envelope which allegedly contained evidence showing
that petitioner held P3.3 billion in a secret bank account under the name “Jose Velarde.” The
ruling was met by a spontaneous outburst of anger that hit the streets of the metropolis.
Thereafter, the Armed Forces and the PNP withdrew their support to the Estrada government.
Some Cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and bureau chiefs resigned from
their posts.

On January 20, 2001, at about 12 noon, Chief Justice Davide administered the oath to
respondent Arroyo as President of the Philippines. On the same day, petitioner issued a press
statement that he was leaving Malacanang Palace for the sake of peace and in order to begin the
healing process of the nation. It also appeared that on the same day, he signed a letter stating
that he was transmitting a declaration that he was unable to exercise the powers and duties of his
office and that by operation of law and the Constitution, the Vice-President shall be the Acting
President. A copy of the letter was sent to Speaker Fuentebella and Senate President Pimentel on
the same day.

After his fall from the power, the petitioner’s legal problems appeared in clusters. Several cases
previously filed against him in the Office of the Ombudsman were set in motion.

Issues:
1. Whether the petitions present a justiciable controversy.
2. Assuming that the petitions present a justiciable controversy, whether petitioner Estrada is a
President on leave while respondent Arroyo is an Acting President.
3. 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.
4. Whether the prosecution of petitioner Estrada should be enjoined on the ground of prejudicial
publicity.

Ruling:
1. No. The case is legal not political.
2. No. He is not a president on leave.
3. No. The impeachment proceedings was already aborted. As a non-sitting president, he is not
entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution
4. There is not enough evidence to warrant this Court to enjoin the preliminary investigation of
the petitioner by the respondent Ombudsman.

Doctrine:
Petitioner denies he resigned as President or that he suffers from a permanent disability.

Resignation is a factual question. In order to have a valid resignation, there must be an intent to
resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment. The validity of a resignation is
not governed by any formal requirement as to form. It can be oral. It can be written. It can be
express. It can be implied. As long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect. In the
cases at bar, the facts show that petitioner did not write any formal letter of resignation before
leaving Malacanang Palace. Consequently, whether or not petitioner resigned has to be
determined from his acts and omissions before, during and after Jan. 20, 2001 or by the totality of
prior, contemporaneous and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing a material
relevance on the issue. The Court had an authoritative window on the state of mind of the
petitioner provided by the diary of Executive Sec. Angara serialized in the Phil. Daily Inquirer.
During the first stage of negotiation between Estrada and the opposition, the topic was already
about a peaceful and orderly transfer of power. The resignation of the petitioner was implied.
During the second round of negotiation, the resignation of the petitioner was again treated as a
given fact. The only unsettled points at that time were the measures to be undertaken by the
parties during and after the transition period. The Court held that the resignation of the petitioner
cannot be doubted. It was confirmed by his leaving Malacanang. In the press release containing
his final statement, (1) he acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President of the
Republic, but with the reservation about its legality; (2) he emphasized he was leaving the Palace,
the seat of the presidency, for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of the
nation. He did not say he was leaving the Palace due to any kind of inability 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; (4) he assured that he will not shirk
from any future challenge that may come ahead in the same service of the country; and (5) he
called on his supporters to join him in the promotion of a constructive national spirit of
reconciliation and solidarity.

The Court also tackled the contention of the petitioner that he is merely temporarily unable to
perform the powers and duties of the presidency, and hence is a President on leave. The inability
claim is contained in the Jan. 20, 2001 letter of petitioner sent to Senate Pres. Pimentel and
Speaker Fuentebella. Despite said letter, the House of Representatives passed a resolution
supporting the assumption into office by Arroyo as President. The Senate also passed a resolution
confirming the nomination of Guingona as Vice-President. Both houses of Congress have
recognized respondent Arroyo as the President. Implicitly clear in that recognition is the premise
that the inability of petitioner Estrada is no longer temporary. Congress has clearly rejected
petitioner’s claim of inability. The Court cannot pass upon petitioner’s claim of inability to
discharge the powers and duties of the presidency. The question is political in nature
and addressed solely to Congress by constitutional fiat. It is a political issue which cannot be
decided by the Court without transgressing the principle of separation of powers.