Page 1 of 1

ESTRADA v ARROYO challenge that may come ahead in the same service of our country.  Petitioner’s
G.R. No. 146738 reference is to a future challenge after occupying the office of’ the president
which he has given up; and (5) he called on his supporters to join him in the
promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. 
Certainly, the national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity could not be attained if
FACTS: he did not give up the presidency.  The press release was petitioner’s valedictory,
his final act of farewell. His presidency is now in the past tense.
Petitioner sought to enjoin the respondent Ombudsman from conducting any
further proceedings in any criminal complaint that may be filed in his office, until THIRD:  The petitioner is permanently unable to act as President.
after the term of petitioner as President is over and only if legally warranted. Erap
also filed a Quo Warranto case, praying for judgment “confirming petitioner to be Section 11 of Article VII provides that “Congress has the ultimate authority under
the lawful and incumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines temporarily the Constitution to determine whether the President is incapable of performing his
unable to discharge the duties of his office, and declaring respondent to have functions.”  Both houses of Congress have recognized respondent Arroyo as the
taken her oath as and to be holding the Office of the President, only in an acting President.
capacity pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution.”
The House of Representative passed on January 24, 2001 House Resolution No.
l75  which states:  “RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SUPPORT OF THE
HELD: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE ASSUMPTION INTO OFFICE BY
VICE PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO AS PRESIDENT OFTHE
FIRST:  The cases at bar pose legal and not political questions. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, EXTENDING ITS CONGRATULATIONS
AND EXPRESSING ITS SUPPORT FOR HER ADMINISTRATION AS A
The principal issues for resolution require the proper interpretation of certain PARTNER IN THE ATTAINMENT OF THE NATION’S GOALS UNDER THE
provisions in the 1987 Constitution, notably section 1 of Article II, and section 8 of CONSTITUTION.”  The Senate also passed Senate Resolution No. 82 which
Article VII, and the allocation of governmental powers under section II of Article states:  “RESOLUTION CONFIRMING PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-
VII.  The issues likewise call for a ruling on the scope of presidential immunity ARROYO’S NOMINATION OF SEN. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. AS VICE
from suit.  They also involve the correct calibration of the right of petitioner PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES”
against prejudicial publicity.  As early as the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison,
the doctrine has been laid down that “it is emphatically the province and duty of Implicitly clear in that recognition is the premise that the inability of petitioner
the judicial department to say what the law is . . .” Estrada is no longer temporary. Congress has clearly rejected petitioner’s claim
of inability.  Even if petitioner can prove that he did not resign, still, he cannot
The Court also distinguished between EDSA People Power I and EDSA People successfully claim that he is a President on leave on the ground that he is merely
Power II.  EDSA I involves the exercise of the people power of revolution which unable to govern temporarily. That claim has been laid to rest by Congress and
overthrew the whole government.  EDSA II is an exercise of people power of the decision that respondent Arroyo is the de jure President made by a co-equal
freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the government for branch of government cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
redress of grievances which only affected the office of the President.  EDSA I is
extra constitutional and the legitimacy of the new government that resulted from it FOURTH:  The petitioner does not enjoy immunity from suit.
cannot be the subject of judicial review, but EDSA II is intra constitutional and the The Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s argument that he cannot be prosecuted
resignation of the sitting President that it caused and the succession of the Vice for the reason that he must first be convicted in the impeachment proceedings. 
President as President are subject to judicial review.  EDSA I presented political The impeachment trial of petitioner Estrada was aborted by the walkout of the
question; EDSA II involves legal questions. prosecutors and by the events that led to his loss of the presidency.  On February
7, 2001, the Senate passed Senate Resolution No. 83 “Recognizing that the
SECOND: Using the totality test, the SC held that petitioner resigned as Impeachment Court is Functus Officio.”  Since the Impeachment Court is now
President. functus officio, it is untenable for petitioner to demand that he should first be
impeached and then convicted before he can be prosecuted.  The plea, if
a.         The proposal for a snap election for president in May where he would not granted, would put a perpetual bar against his prosecution.  The debates in the
be a candidate is an indicium that petitioner had intended to give up the Constitutional Commission make it clear that when impeachment proceedings
presidency even at that time. have become moot due to the resignation of the President, the proper criminal
and civil cases may already be filed against him.
b.         The Angara diary shows that the President wanted only five-day period
promised by Reyes, as well as to open the second envelop to clear his name. The SC also ruled in In re: Saturnino Bermudez that “incumbent Presidents are
immune from suit or from being brought to court during the period of their
“If the envelope is opened, on Monday, he says, he will leave by Monday. incumbency and tenure” but not beyond. Considering the peculiar circumstance
that the impeachment process against the petitioner has been aborted and
“The President says. “Pagod na pagod na ako.  Ayoko na masyado nang thereafter he lost the presidency, petitioner cannot demand as a condition sine
masakit.  Pagod na ako sa red tape, bureaucracy, intriga. (I am very tired. I don’t qua non to his criminal prosecution before the Ombudsman that he be convicted
want any more of this – it’s too painful.  I’m tired of the red tape, the bureaucracy, in the impeachment proceedings.
the intrigue.)
Also, petitioner cannot cite any decision of the SC licensing the President to
“I just want to clear my name, then I will go.” commit criminal acts and wrapping him with post-tenure immunity from liability. 
The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the State and the
The SC held that this is high grade evidence that the petitioner has resigned.  officer who acts illegally is not acting as such but stands in the same footing as
The intent to resign is clear when he said “x x x Ayoko na masyado nang any other trespasser.
masakit.” “ Ayoko na” are words of resignation.
FIFTH:  Petitioner was not denied the right to impartial trial.
c.         During the negotiations, the resignation of the petitioner was treated as a
given fact. The only unsettled points at that time were the measures to be Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. 
undertaken by the parties during and after transition period. The mere fact that the trial of appellant was given a day-to-day, gavel-to-gavel
coverage does not by itself prove that the publicity so permeated the mind of the
d.         His resignation was also confirmed by his leaving Malacañang.  In the trial judge and impaired his impartiality. In the case at bar, the records do not
press release containing his final statement, (1) he acknowledged the oath-taking show that the trial judge developed actual bias against appellant as a
of the respondent as President of the Republic albeit with the reservation about consequence of the extensive media coverage of the pre-trial and trial of his
its legality; (2) he emphasized he was leaving the Palace, the seat of the case.  The totality of circumstances of the case does not prove that the trial judge
presidency, for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of our acquired a fixed opinion as a result of prejudicial publicity which is incapable if
nation.  He did not say he was leaving the Palace due to any kind of inability and change even by evidence presented during the trial. Appellant has the burden to
he was going to re-assume the presidency as soon as the disability disappears; prove this actual bias and he has not discharged the burden.
(3) he expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them. 
Without doubt, he was referring to the past opportunity given him to serve the
people as President; (4) he assured that he will not shirk from any future