Estrada vs.

Desierto This is a petition to question the legitimacy of the assumption as President of the Republic of the Philippines by Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Facts: 11 May 1998 Estrada was elected Pres. while GMA was elected VP. Both were to serve for six years. 4 October 2000 Chavit accused Estrada and family and friends of receiving jueteng money 5 October 2000 Guingona, Senate Minority Leader, delivered a speech entitled I Accuse accusing Estrada of receiving some P220M jueteng money from Gov. Singson from November 1998 to August 2000. Also, that Estrada took P70M from Gov. Singson on excise tax on cigarettes intended for Ilocos Sur. o Sen. Drilon referred the privilege speech to the Blue Ribbon Committee headed by Sen. Aquilino Pimentel and the Committee on Justice headed by Sen. Renato Cayetano for joint investigation House Committee on Public Order and Security headed by Rep. Golez decided to investigate the expose of the Gov. Singson Reps. Alvarez, Herrera, and Defensor spearheaded the impeachment 11 October Arch. Jaime Cardinal Sin issued a pastoral statement asking Estrada to step down as he had lost moral authority to govern 13 October CBCP joined the call for Estradas resignation 17 October Pres. Cory demanded Estradas resignation. Pres. Ramos also joined. 12 October GMA resigned as Sec of DSWS and asked for resignation. Estrada refused to resign 1 November 4 senior economic advisers, members of the Council of Senior Economic Advisers, resigned. (Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala, former Prime Minister Cesar Virata, former Sen. Vicente Paterno, and Washington Sycip) 2 November Sec. Mar Roxas resigned from DTI 3 November Sen. Drilon, House Speaker Villar, and 47 reps defected from the Lapian ng Masang Pilipino coalition 13 November Articles of Impeachment signed by 115 reps or more than 1/3 of the House of Reps was transmitted to the Senate by Villar Sen. Drilon was replaced by Sen. Pimentel as Senate President. Speaker Villar was unseated by Rep. Fuentabella 20 November the Senate formally opened the impeachment trial. 21 senators took their oath as judges w/ SC Chief Justice Davide presiding

 7 December trial started. The battle royale was fought by some of the marquee names in the legal profession Dramatic point of December hearing Clarissa Ocampos (senior VP of Equitable-PCI Bank) testimony that she was only 1 foot away from Estrada when he affixed the signature Jose Velarde on documents involving P500M investment agreement with their bank on February 4, 2000 2 January 2001 resumption of trial after the Christmas break 11 January Atty. Edgardo Espiritu, Estradas Sec of Finance, took the witness stand o Alleged that Estrada jointly owned BW Resources Corp with Mr. Dante Tan who was facing charges of insider trading 16 January (10:00 am) with the vote of 11-10, the senator-judges ruled against the opening of the 2nd envelope which allegedly contained evidence showing that Estrada held P3.3B in a secret bank account under the name Jose Velarde o The public and private prosecutors walked out in protest o Senator Pimentel resigned as Senate President o By midnight thousands assembled at EDSA Shrine 17 January public prosecutors submitted their resignation to Speaker Fuentabella o Filed their Manifestation of Withdrawal of Appearance with the impeachment tribunal o Sen. Roco moved for the indefinite postponement of impeachment trial until the resignation of the public prosecutors has been resolved o Chief Justice granted the motion 18 January a 10km line of people holding candles formed a human chain from the Ninoy Aquino Monument on Ayala Ave in Makati to EDSA to symbolize the peoples solidarity in demanding Estradas resignation o Students and teachers walked out of their classes in Metro Manila to show their concordance 19 January the fall from power of Estrada appeared inevitable o 1:20PM, Estrada informed Exec. Sec Angara that Gen. Angelo Reyes, Chief of Staff of AFP had defected o 2:30PM, Estrada agreed to a snap election o 3:00PM, Sec. of Natl Defense Orlando Mercado and Gen. Reyes together w/ the chiefs of all the armed services went to EDSA. Gen. Reyes announced the withdrawal of the Armed Forces o PNP Chief, Dir. Gen. Panfilo Lacson and the major service commanders announced their withdrawal o Some Cabinet secs, undersecs, asst. secs, and bureau chiefs resigned o Rallies exploded in various parts of the country

Estrada announced he was ordering his lawyers to agree to the opening of the 2nd envelope 20 January 12:20 AM the first round of negotiations for the peaceful and orderly transfer of power started at Malacaangs Mabini Hall o Negotiations between Arroyo and Estrada were made o Anti and pro Estrada clashed in Mendiola o 12:00 noon, Chief Justice Davide administered oath to Arroyo as President of the Philippines o 2:30PM, Estrada and family left the Palace. He released a press statement which states that he has serious doubt as to the legality of GMAs oathtaking but is leaving nonetheless to restore peace and unity. On the same day, he also signed a statement declaring that he is no longer able to exercise the powers and duties of his office and, therefore, the VP becomes the Acting President. A copy of the letter was sent to Fuentabella (8:30am) and to Pimentel (9:00pm) on the same day 22 January Monday after taking her oath, GMA immediately discharged the powers and duties of the Presidency o SC issued the Resolution allowing GMAs oathtaking o GMA appointed her Cabinet as well as ambassadors and special envoys
o

23 January - GMAs presidency was recognized by foreign govts 24 January Rep. Belmonte was elected Speaker of the House of Reps o House passed Resolution No. 175 expressing full support to GMAs presidency o Approved Resolution No. 176 expressing Houses support to GMAs assumption into office as President 26 January GMA signed into law the Solid Waste Management Act o Also signed Political Advertising Ban and Fair Election Practices Act 6 February GMA nominated Guingona as VP 7 February Senate adopted Resolution No. 82 confirming the nomination of Guingona o House of Reps approved Guingonas nomination in Resolution No. 178 o Guingona took his oath 2 days later o Senate passed Resolution No. 83 declaring the impeachment court as functus officio and has been terminated o Sen. Defensor-Santiago voted against the closure since the Senate failed to decide on the case and the resolution left open the question of whether Estrada was still qualified to run for another elective post GMAs public acceptance rating soared Estradas legal problems multiplied A special panel of investigators was created by the Ombudsman to investigate the charges against Estrada.

 22 January Estrada was directed to file a counter-affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses 5 February Estrada filed a petition for prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the Ombudsman from conducting any futher proceedings in the cases filed against him or in any other criminal complaint that may be filed in his office, until Estradas term as President is over and only if legally warranted 6 February filed for Quo Warranto o Prayed for judgment confirming Estrada to be the lawful and incumbent President of the Rep of the Phil temporarily unable to discharge the duties of his office and that GMA is but an Acting President o Respondents were asked to comment on the complaint until 12 February 15 February, the consolidated cases and respondents comments were orally argued in a 4-hour hearing o Chief Justice Davide and Assoc Justice Artemio Panganiban inhibited themselves o The parties were given 5 days to file their memoranda and 2 days to submit their simultaneous replies 20 February Court resolved: o The Court did not issue a resolution on 20 January 2001 declaring the office of the President vacant and CJ did not issue a press statement justifying the alleged resolution o The parties are not allowed to make comments or discuss in public the merits of the case while still pending o Issued a 30-day status quo order effective immediately enjoining Ombudsman from resolving or deciding the criminal cases pending in his office against Estrada 24 February parties filed their replies 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 GMA 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 Held: 1. Whether or not the cases at bar involve a political question - Respondents argue that the case poses a political question and is not within the jurisdiction of the Court

Court hold that the case involves legal questions 2. Whether or not the petitioner resigned as President or considered resigned when GMA took her oath - Estrada denies resigning or that he suffers permanent disability. Therefore, the office of the President was not vacant when GMA took her oath - Court: validity of resignation does not need formal requirement. It can be oral, written, express, or implied. As long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect o Estrada did not write a formal letter of resignation o But his acts and omissions before, during and after January 20, 2001 can be used to determine whether or not he has resigned. Using this test, the Court hold that Estrada resigned o The events surrounding his impeachment led to Estradas proposal for a snap election where he wont be a candidate. This evidenced that he intended to give up the presidency even at that time. When he was advised to consider a dignified exit or resignation, he did not disagree except to say that he will never leave the country. He even wanted to cooperate in a peaceful and orderly transfer of power. These show an implied resignation. In Angaras diary, Estrada was also shown to have said Ayoko na These are words of resignation. In the second round of negotiation, Estradas resignation was also treated as a given fact. However, before both parties could sign the deal, GMA was sworn in as President. The clause regarding resignation was then deleted for being moot and academic. o Estradas leaving of Malacaang confirmed his resignation. His press statement supports the same. o Estradas letter stating he is unable to exercise the duties and powers of his office and thus allows the VP to be the Acting President cannot negate his resignation. Petitioners 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 o Estrada could not resign as a matter of law citing section 12 of RA No. 3019 or Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act which prohibits the resignation of a public officer while there is a pending investigation or prosecution against him. But the intent of law is to make sure that resignation or retirement from office will not cause the dismissal of the proceedings against him. Besides, when Estrada was still President, the Ombudsman was not able to conduct preliminary investigation of him since he was immune from suit as President
-

3. Whether or not the petitioner is only temporary unable to act as President - Estrada is only unable to perform the powers and duties of the presidency and is, therefore, on leave. - Court: Both Houses of Congress have recognized GMA as President. Implicitly clear in that recognition is the premise that the inability of petitioner Estrada is no longer temporary. Congress has clearly rejected petitioners claim of inability. - The question is whether the Court has jurisdiction to review the claim of temporary inability of Estrada o Court holds that it cannot exercise its judicial power for this is a legislative issue. The question is political in nature. 4. Whether or not the petitioner enjoys immunity from suit. Assuming he enjoys immunity, the extent of the immunity. - Estradas submissions: o The cases filed against him before the respondent Ombudsman should be prohibited because he has not been convicted in the impeachment proceedings against him o He enjoys immunity from all kinds of suit, whether criminal or civil - Court: immunity is only given to President during his tenure. Afterwards, he can now be tried in ordinary courts - On scope of immunity, cases against Estrada are criminal in character and Estrada cannot cite any Courts decision licensing the President to commit criminal acts and wrapping him with post-tenure immunity. The constitutional policies will be devalued if we sustain the petitioners claim that a non-sitting president enjoys immunity from suit for criminal acts committed during his incumbency. 5. Whether or not the prosecution of Estrada should be enjoined due to prejudicial publicity - Ombudsman should be stopped from conducting investigation on the cases filed against Estrada due to the barrage of prejudicial publicity on his guilt. Ombudsman has developed bias and is all set to file the criminal cases in violation of his right to due process - 2 principal legal and philosophical thoughts on how to deal with the rain of unrestrained publicity during the investigation and trial of high profile cases: o British approach presumes that publicity will prejudice a jury and thus readily stay and stop criminal trials when the right of the accused to fair trial suffers a threat o American appraoch skeptical about the potential effect of pervasive publicity on the right of an accused to a fair trial. They have developed different strains of tests to resolve this issue, i.e. substantial probability of irreparable harm, strong likelihood, clear and present danger, etc.

Court: In former cases where the same claim was made, the court denied the appeal stating that there should be allegation and proof that judges were unduly influenced, not simply that they might be, by the barrage of publicity. So, the Court hold that there is not enough evidence to warrant it to enjoin the preliminary investigation of the petitioner by the respondent Ombudsman. o Hostile headlines are not enough proof. Estrada should show more weighty social science evidence to successfully prove the impaired capacity of a judge to render a bias-free decision o Investigating prosecutor should not be treated like unthinking slot machines