Renz Marion C.

Caras
Case Digest_Philosophy_of_Law

Estrada vs Desierto
[G.R. nos. 146710 – 15. March 2, 2001]
JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, petitioner, vs. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, respondent.

Cases at bar:
1. Petition for prohibition with a prayer for a write of preliminary injunction for the following
Case Nos. until his term as presidency is over: (Feb. 5, 2001)

 OMB 0-00-1629 by Ramon Gonzales on October 23, 2000 for bribery and graft and
corruption
 OMB 0-00-1754 by The Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption on November 17,
2000 for plunder, forfeiture, graft and corruption.
 OMB 0-00-1755 by Graft Free Philippines Foundation, Inc. On November 24, 2000
for plunder, forfeiture, graft and corruption, bribery, perjury, serious misconduct.
 OMB 0-00-1756 by Romeo Capulong, et al on November 28, 2000 for malversation
of public funds, illegal use of public funds and property, plunder, etc.
 OMB 0-00-1757 by Leonard de Vera, et al on November 28, 2000 for bribery,
plunder, indirect bribery, violation of PD 1602, PD 1829, PD 46, and RA 7080
 OMB 0-00-1758 by Ernesto B. Fransisco, Jr. on December 4, 2000 for plunder and
graft and corruption.

2. Quo Warranto (thru another counsel): Confirm him as lawful and incumbent President of
the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge his duties, and declaring respondent (GMA)
to have taken her oath as and to be holding the Office of President, only in acting capacity
pursuant to the provision of the Constitution (Feb. 6, 2001) Court G.R. no. 146738.
Issues:
Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada alleges that he is the President on leave while respondent Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo claims she is the President. The warring personalities are important enough but more
transcendental are the constitutional issues embedded on the parties’ dispute. While the significant issues are
many, the jugular issue involves the relationship between the ruler and the ruled in a democracy, Philippine
style.

- (1)Whether or not the case at bar involve a political question

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.

Principles of Interpretation:
For issues:
(1)
The petitions present justifiable controversy.
- Section 1, Article 8: “...but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government.”
- EDSA 2 is within constitutional boundaries. GMA swore under the 1987 Constitution. Such action poses
legal question, clearly, rather than a political one as to the constitutional legality of her presidency.
- The issues for resolution require proper interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution, hence,
concerning legal issues.
(2)
Estrada resigned as President
- The issue brings under the microscope of meaning of Section 8, Article 7: “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 of both the President and Vice President, the
President of Senate or, in case of inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall then acts as
President until President or Vice President shall have been elected and qualified.
- Qualities of resignation:
 Intent to resign coupled by acts of relinquishment
 The validity of a resignation is not governed by any formal requirement as to form; it
can be oral, written, expressed, implied, as long as it is clear it is given legal effect.
- Totality Test: Was there intent to resign? Was this coupled with acts of relinquishment?
Based on the Angara diary, Estrada requested they help each other to ensure a peaceful and
orderly transfer of power

Negotiations for the peaceful and orderly transfer of power summarized as:
a. 5 days transition period after RESIGNATION
b. Guarantee of safety of the petitioner and family
c. Agreement to open 2nd envelope to clear petitioner’s name and afterwards mark his leave

(3)
Congress supports GMA as President
- Examination of Section 11, Article 7 of the Constitution
 Transfer of power
 Cabinet declares inability of President and recognizes Vice President’s assumption to
office
 Congress deliberates
o January 24, 2001 – House of Representative passed House Resolution No.
176 which states their support
 o February 7, 2001 – House of Representatives passed House Resolution No.
178

(4)
- Conviction in the impeachment proceedings condition for criminal prosecution
- Whether Estrada is immune from criminal prosecution
o The Walk-out of the Senators aborted impeachment trial
o Estrada resigned. No need for impeachment order for suits to be filed against him
o February 7, 2001: Senate Resolution No. 83 Recognizing that the impeachment court is Functus
Officio
o There is no post-tenure immunity for cases like plunder, bribery, graft and corruption.

(5)
- “There is not enough evidence to warrant this court to enjoin the preliminary investigation of the
petitioner by the respondent Ombudsman.”
- Publicity as such does not create bias

- The case involves public views since the petitioner was the President

Evaluation:

This paper agrees with the decision of the Supreme Court because of the arguments of interpretation presented
above and details given by the court. The petitioner’s arguments are basing on actions of hypocrisy. It is obvious
that petitioner’s statements implies that he is either oblivious of his actions beforehand or he is playing with the
mercy of the court. What does these two mean? First, the petitioner gives arguments in his petitions with
actions that according to him he did not do but evidences prove to be otherwise. He implied and acted upon his
resignation however according to him this was not the case. According to him, he merely transferred powers but
will soon reassume his position. He does not recognize the legal and political questions in relation to his actions.
The constitution and legislature sees his actions as that of resignation. Second, the petitioner makes a mockery
of the court by simply quibbling the issues such as his probable prejudicial publicity and using his position as an
appeal to his power. He assumed he has some immunity, however, he is still a citizen of this country and as a
citizen he is under the powers of the law. If we view it through social-political philosophies, if one violates the
law, he/she forfeits certain rights with regard to his/her crime. Another point is that of a leader’s capabilities
and duties. If a leader ceases to perform his/her obligations under ethical code, he/she no longer becomes a
leader. The reason is that the virtue of a leader is to organize the society for the betterment of the society. If the
leader no longer possesses such virtue, therefore, such person, by logic, is no longer a leader but other than
what a leader is. In a democracy, the people has implied sovereignty over the powers of the society, thus they
choose a representative to bestow ruling powers. If the representative no longer follows the duties given to
him/her then those that bestow the power can transfer it to another with whom they could confide with.