ESTRADA VS ARROYO DIGEST

JOSEPH E. ESTRADA VS. ANIANO DESIERTO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, RAMON GONZALES, VOLUNTEERS
AGAINST CRIME AND CORRUPTION, GRAFT FREE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION, INC., LEONARD DE VERA, DENNIS FUNA,
ROMEO CAPULONG AND ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR.
G.R. NO. 146710-15
MARCH 2, 2001

FACTS:

On October 4, 2000, then President Joseph Estrada was embroiled in a corruption scandal after a close friend, Ilocos Sur Governor Luis
Chavit Singson, revealed that Estrada and his family allegedly received money from Jueteng lords.

The revelation prompted Senator Teofisto Guingona to deliver a privilege speech, detailing the anomalies done by President Estrada. The
public now calls for Estrada’s resignation. Eventually, he had to face an impeachment trial in the Senate by December 7.

On January 16, 2001, in a vote of 11-10, the Senator-Judges ruled against opening the second envelope which allegedly contains
evidence wherein Estrada held P3.3 billion in a secret bank account under the name “Jose Velarde.”
At this point, everyone snapped. The prosecutors tendered their resignation – prompting the Senate to postpone the impeachment
proceedings indefinitely. People started marching towards EDSA to call for Estrada’s resignation. On January 19, both the AFP and PNP
declared that they are withdrawing their support of the Estrada administration.

On January 20, (12 noon), Chief Justice Davide administered Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s oath as the new President of the
Republic of the Philippines. At around 2:30 PM, Estrada and his family hurriedly left Malacanang. Estrada then issued the following
statement:

“At twelve o’clock noon today, Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took her oath as President of the Republic of the
Philippines. While along with many other legal minds of our country, I have strong and serious doubts about the legality and
constitutionality of her proclamation as President, I do not wish to be a factor that will prevent the restoration of unity and order
in our civil society.

It is for this reason that I now leave Malacañang Palace, the seat of the presidency of this country, for the sake of peace and in
order to begin the healing process of our nation. I leave the Palace of our people with gratitude for the opportunities given to me
for service to our people. I will not shirk from any future challenges that may come ahead in the same service of our country.

I call on all my supporters and followers to join me in to promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and
solidarity. May the Almighty bless our country and beloved people.

MABUHAY! (Sgd.) JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA”

It also appears that on the same day, January 20, 2001, he signed the following letter (sent to House Speaker Fuentebella and Senate
President Pimentel):

“Sir: By virtue of the provisions of Section 11, Article VII of the Constitution, I am hereby transmitting this declaration that I am
unable to exercise the powers and duties of my office. By operation of law and the Constitution, the Vice-President shall be the
Acting President. (Sgd.) JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA”

On January 22, now President Arroyo started discharging her functions as President. She appointed new cabinet members, ambassadors
and special envoys. Foreign state leaders also expressed their recognition to Arroyo’s administration (including then President George
Bush from the White House). Congress issued House Resolution 175 to express support to the new admin. The court also issued the
following Resolution in Administrative Matter No. 01-1-05-SC, to wit:

“A.M. No. 01-1-05-SC — In re: Request of Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to Take her Oath of Office as President of
the Republic of the Philippines before the Chief Justice — Acting on the urgent request of Vice President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo to be sworn in as President of the Republic of the Philippines, addressed to the Chief Justice and confirmed by a letter to
the Court, dated January 20, 2001, which request was treated as an administrative matter, the court Resolve unanimously to
confirm the authority given by the twelve (12) members of the Court then present to the Chief Justice on January 20, 2001 to
administer the oath of office of Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Philippines, at noon of January 20,
2001.

This resolution is without prejudice to the disposition of any justiciable case that may be filed by a proper party.”

The Senate then passed Resolution No. 83 which officially moved to terminate the impeachment proceeding. Senator Miriam Defensor-
Santiago stated “for the record” that she voted against the closure of the impeachment court on the grounds that the Senate had failed to
decide on the impeachment case and that the resolution left open the question of whether Estrada was still qualified to run for another
elective post.

Estrada on the other hand is now facing charges of plunder, graft, and corruption under the office of the Ombudsman. He then filed a
writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the Ombudsman from “conducting any further proceedings in or any other criminal complaint
that may be filed in his office, until after the term of petitioner as President is over.

Thru another counsel, Estrada filed for Quo Warranto. He prayed for judgment to confirm him as the lawful and incumbent President of
the Republic of the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge the duties of his office, and declaring respondent (Arroyo) to have taken
her oath as and to be holding the Office of the President, only in an acting capacity.

ISSUES:
1. WON Estrada officially resigned as a president.
2. WON Estrada is only temporarily unable to act as president.
3. WON the prosecution of Estrada should be enjoined due to prejudicial publicity.

HELD:
(1) YES. – please also read Section 8, Article VII of the Constitution

We hold that the resignation of the petitioner cannot be doubted. It was confirmed by his leaving Malacañang. In the press release
containing his final statement: (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 the Palace, the seat of the presidency, for the sake of peace and in order to begin the
healing process of our nation.

He also 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 he did not give up the presidency. The press release was
petitioner’s valedictory, his final act of farewell.

As to the second letter (addressed to Fuentebella and Pimentel), the court held that it is wrapped in mystery since Estrada did not reveal
the circumstances that led to its preparation. It was all too easy for him to tell the Filipino people in his press release that he was
temporarily unable to govern and that he was leaving the reins of government to respondent Arroyo for the time bearing.

Under any circumstance, however, the mysterious letter cannot negate the resignation of Estrada. If it was prepared before the press
release as a later act. If, however, it was prepared after the press release, still, it commands scant legal significance. Estrada’s 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
reputation by the people.

Petitioner contends that the impeachment proceeding is an administrative investigation that, under section 12 of RA 3019, bars him from
resigning. The court held otherwise. The exact nature of an impeachment proceeding is debatable.

Even assuming arguendo that it is an administrative proceeding, it can not be considered pending at the time Estrada resigned because
the process already broke down when a majority of the senator-judges voted against the opening of the second envelope, the public and
private prosecutors walked out, the public prosecutors filed their Manifestation of Withdrawal of Appearance, and the proceedings were
postponed indefinitely. There was, in effect, no impeachment case pending against Estrada when he resigned.

(2) NO – please read section 11, Article VII of the Constitution.

Even if the petitioner can prove that he did not resign, still, he cannot successfully claim that he is a President on leave on the ground that
he is merely unable to govern temporarily. That claim has been laid to rest by Congress and the decision that respondent Arroyo is the de
jure, president made by a co-equal branch of government cannot be reviewed by this Court.

(3) NO

Estrada also contends that respondent Ombudsman should be stopped from conducting the investigation of the cases filed against him
due to the barrage of prejudicial publicity on his guilt. He submits that the respondent Ombudsman has developed bias and is all set file
the criminal cases violation of his right to due process.

The court held that to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly
influenced, not simply that they might be, by the barrage of publicity.

There is not enough evidence to warrant this Court to enjoin the preliminary investigation of the petitioner by the respondent
Ombudsman. Petitioner needs to offer more than hostile headlines to discharge his burden of proof.

The accuracy of the news reports referred to by the petitioner cannot be the subject of judicial notice by this Court especially in light of
the denials of the respondent Ombudsman as to his alleged prejudice and the presumption of good faith and regularity in the performance
of official duty to which he is entitled.

PETITION IS DISMISSED.