Estrada vs. Desierto G.R. No. 146710-15, March 2, 2001 Estrada vs. Arroyo G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001 Sunday, January 25, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests, Digests, Political Law
Facts:
In the May 11, 1998 elections, petitioner Joseph Estrada was
electe ele cted d Pre Preside sident nt whi while le res respon ponden dentt Glo Gloria ria Mac Macapa apagalgal-Arr Arroyo oyo was ele electe cted d Vice-Pr Vice -Presid esident ent.. Fro From m the beg beginn inning ing of his ter term, m, how howeve ever, r, pet petiti itione onerr was plagued by problems that slowly eroded his popularity. On October 4, 2000, Ilocos Ilo cos Sur Gov Govern ernor or Cha Chavit vit Sin Singso gson, n, a lon longtim gtime e fri friend end of the pet petiti itione oner, r, accused the petitioner, his family and friends of receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords. The expose’ immediately ignited reactions of rage. On Nove No vemb mber er 13 13,,
2000 20 00,, Ho Hous useS eSpe peak aker er
Vill Vi llar ar
tran tr ansm smit itte ted d
the th e
Arti Ar ticl cles es 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 theope the openin ning g of the sec second ond env envelo elope pe whi which ch alle alleged gedly ly con contai tained ned evi eviden dence ce showing that petitioner held P3.3 billion in a secret bank accountunder the name nam e “Jo “Jose se Vel Velard arde.” e.” The rul ruling ing was met by a spo sponta ntaneo neous us out outbur burst st of ange an gerr th that at hi hitt th the e st stre reet ets s
of th the e me metr trop opol olis is.. Th Ther erea eaft fter er,, th the e Ar Arme med d
Forces and the PNP withdrew their support s upport to the Estrada government. Some Cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, assistantsecretaries 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 Spea Sp eake kerr Fu Fuen ente tebe bella lla an and d Se Sena nate te Pr Pres eside ident nt Pim Pimen ente tell on th the e sam same e da day. y.
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
or
not
the
petitioner
resigned
as
President
(2) Whether or not the petitioner is only temporarily unable to act as President
Held: Petitioner denies he resigned a
permanent
as President or that he suffers from 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 thestate 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 reservationabout 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 housesof 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.
