JOSEPH ESTRADA v GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO G.R. No. 146710-15 March 2,2001Ponente: Puno, J.:FACTS: This involves petitions of Joseph Ejercito Estrada challenging the respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as the de jure 14th President of the Republic. A short outline of events that precipitated thecase at bar thus follows: 1. Petitioner won in the May 1998 national elections as president, the respondent as vice-president.2.On October 4, 2000, Ilocos Sur Governor Chavit Singson accused the petitioner and hisfamily of receivingmillions of pesos from jueteng lords. Such expose ignited several reactions of rage.3.There became a built up of a call for petitioner to resign from office and his officials one byone resignedwithdrawing their support. 4. In November 20 Impeachment Trial of the petitioner was opened, in December 7Impeachment Trial began. 5. January 19 people lined up in EDSA showing a greater call for the resignation of thepresident.6.January 20 was the day of petitioner's surrender. At 12:00 noon Chief Justice Hilario Davideadministeredoath to respondent Arroyo as President of the Philippines. At 2:30 pm petitioner leftMalacanang and issueda press statement and a letter transmitting the executive power upon him, thepresident to the vicepresident becoming the acting president7.The Monday after the oath, Arroyo discharged powers of the President.8.Criminal cases have been filed against the petitioner after he stepped down into presidency. ISSUES: There are several important issues sprouting in this case. 1. WON the cases at bar present a justiciable controversy / political question specifically inregard thelegitimacy of the Arroyo administration2.WON Estrada merely resigned as President3.WON Estrada is only temporarily unable to act as President4.WON Estrada enjoys immunity from suit5.WON the prosecution of petitioner Estrada should be enjoined due to prejudicial publicity HELD: The petitions of Joseph Ejercito Estrada challenging the respondent GloriaMacapagal-Arroyo as the de jure 14th President of the Republic are DISMISSED 1. The question on the legitimacy of the Arroyo administration is subject to judicialreview. It is a legal question, which is justiciable. At first, it can be said that acquisition of the presidential seat of respondent Arroyo would besimilar to that of former President Corazon Aquino as they were placed into position by meansof the call of the people in a revolutionary mass demonstration known as EDSA I for Aquino,and EDSA II for Arroyo.It has been stressed by private respondents that Arroyo ascended the presidency throughpeople power; that she has already taken her oath as the 14th President of the Republic; thatshe has exercised the powers of the presidency and that she has been recognized by foreigngovernments. Consequently, the grounds of the case show that such is a political question.SC read the case Lawyers League vs Pres. Aquino, which decided that the legitimacy of Aquinoadministration in question was a political question. The Freedom

Constitution declared thatAquino's government was a result a successful peaceful revolution by the sovereign Filipinopeople, hence a political question. In contrast, Arroyo's government was not revolutionary incharacter. Arroyo swore under the 1987 Constitution. There is a legal distinction between EDSA People Power I and EDSA People Power II. EDSA Iinvolves the exercise of the people power of revolution which overthrew the wholegovernment; it presented then a political question. EDSA II is an exercise of people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances which only affected the office of the President, presenting a legal and justiciablequestion. 2.It was held that Estrada has resigned as President. The issue was whether the petitioner resigned as President or should he be consideredresigned as of January 20, 2001 when respondent took her oath as the 14th President of thePublic in view of Art. VII Sec. 8 of 1987 Constitution. It was said that there must be intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment . There is no formal requirement as to form of a valid resignation. It can beoral. It can be written. It can be express. It can be implied. As long as the resignation is clear, itmust be given legal

effect. Consequently, whether or not petitioner resigned has to bedetermined from his act and omissions before, during and after January 20, 2001 or by the totality of prior, contemporaneous and posterior facts and circumstantial evidencebearing a material relevance on the issue. Using the TOTALITY TEST, Estrada was held to have resigned as President. Intent to Resign. There was public pressure for petitioner to resign. In the diary of ExecutiveSecretary Eduardo Angara called "Final Days of Joseph Ejercito Estrada," an authoritativewindow to the state of mind of the petitioner was provided. On January 20, 2:30 pm heproposed for a snap election for president in May, emphasizing that he would not be acandidate. This is an indication that he intended to give up the presidency even at that time.As his support from his officials were withdrawn, he was even advised to have a "dignified exitor resignation." Estrada did not object to this suggestion but stated that he would never leavethe country. At 10:00 p.m. he said to Angara "Ed, Angie (Reyes) guaranteed that I would havefive days to a week in the palace." This was proof petitioner had reconciled himself to thereality that he had to resign. His mind was already concerned with the five-day grace period hecould stay in the palace. Estrada became concerned with peaceful and orderly transfer of power when he told Angara ""Ed, magtulungan tayo para magkaroon tayo ng (let's cooperateto ensure a) peaceful and orderly transfer of power." The resignation of the petitioner wasimplied. Acts of Relinquishment. In the press release containing his final statement before he and hisfamily left Malacanang, (1) he acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President of the Republic albeit with reservation about its legality; (2) he emphasized he was leaving thePalace, the seat of the presidency, for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healingprocess of our nation. He did not say he was leaving the Palace due to any kind inability andthat he was going to re-assume the presidency as soon as the disability disappears: (3) heexpressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them. Without doubt, he wasreferring to the past opportunity given him to serve the people as President (4) he assured thathe will not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in the same service of ourcountry. Petitioner's reference is to a future challenge after occupying the office of

thepresident which he has given up; and (5) he called on his supporters to join him in thepromotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. Certainly, thenational spirit of reconciliation and solidarity could not be attained if he did not give up thepresidency. The press release was petitioner's valedictory, his final act of farewell. Hispresidency is now in the past tense. 3.The law which concerned this issue was Article VII Sec.11 which provides in part:"Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of theHouse of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers andduties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, suchpowers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President.Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senateand to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the Presidentis unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice- President shall immediatelyassume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President." "If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration, or, if not insession, within twelve days after it is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses, voting separately, that the President is unable to discharge the powers and dutiesof his office, the Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise, the President shall continueexercising the powers and duties of his office" The operative facts concerning this issue are:*Petitioner, on January 20, 2001, sent letter claiming inability to the Senate President andSpeaker of the House;*Unaware of the letter, respondent Arroyo took her oath of office as President on January 20,2001 at about 12:30 p.m.;*Despite receipt of the letter, the House of Representatives

passed on January 24, 2001 HouseResolution No. 175; followed by House Resolution No. 176 a resolution expressing the supportof the house of representatives to the assumption into office by Vice President GloriaMacapagal-Arroyo as President of the Republic of the Philippines, adopted January 24, 2001. Clearly, from the given facts, both houses of Congress have recognized respondentArroyo as the President. Implicitly clear in that recognition is the premise that theinability of petitioner Estrada is no longer temporary. Congress has clearly rejectedpetitioner's claim of temporary inability. The Court has no jurisdiction to review the

temporary inability and to revise thereafter the decision of both houses of Congressrecognizing Arroyo as President because this question involves the Legislature'sdiscretionary authority. 4. It was held the Estrada is not immune for liability. His claim that he must theimpeachment proceeding must first be decided before civil or criminal prosecution begin isuntenable for he has been considered resigned from office. Hence the impeachment tribunaland proceeding has ceased. Hence, as a non-sitting President, he can be tried for civil andcriminal charges filed against him. 5. Petitioner contended that the respondent Ombudsman should be stopped from conductingthe investigation of the cases filed against him due to the barrage of prejudicial publicity on hisguilt. He stated that the respondent Ombudsman has developed bias and is all set file thecriminal cases violation of his right to due process. It was held that there was not enoughevidence to warrant the Court to enjoin the preliminary investigation of thepetitioner by the respondent Ombudsman. The evidence given by petitioner thatOmbudsman has been biased by the pervasive prejudicial publicity against him wasinsubstantial