21127266-estrada-v-desierto

8/4/2019 21127266-Estrada-v-Desierto

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/21127266-estrada-v-desierto 1/3

Estrada v. Desierto

Facts:

This is a petition to question the legitimacy of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’assumption of the presidency of the Philippines, filed by her immediatepredecessor Joseph Estrada.

What actually happened:o May 11, 1998: Estrada wins the presidency with an overwhelming lead

Arroyo is elected as Vice-President.o October 4, 2000: Ilocos Sur governor Luis “Chavit” Singson starts publicly

accusing Estrada and his family of receiving jueteng payoffs.o October 5, 2000: Echoes of Singson’s accusations resound in both the Senate

and House of Representatives, mainly through opposition members /members of the Minority.

o October 11-November, 2000: Several advisers resign, including Departmentof Social Welfare and Development Secretary Arroyo. Estrada’s allies in the

Majority defect to the other camp. Past presidents and Archbishop CardinaSin call for Estrada’s resignation.o November 13, 2000: House Speaker Manuel Villar transmits the Articles of

Impeachment to the Senate.o November 20, 2000: the Impeachment Process formally starts, with 21

Senators as judges, and Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jrpresiding.

o December 7, 2000-January 11, 2001: the Impeachment trial properPresentation of evidence. On January 11, 11 senators vote against theopening of “the second envelope,” which allegedly contains evidence toprove that Estrada indeed kept a secret bank account worth 3.3 billion pesos

under the name “Jose Velarde.” These 11 outnumbered the 10 senators whowanted to have the envelope opened.

o January 17, 2001: Public prosecutors resign, and the impeachmenproceedings, postponed indefinitely.

o January 18, 2001: Hundreds of people march to EDSA in a mass movementcalling for Estrada’s resignation (dubbed the “EDSA II Movement”).

o January 19, 2001: the Military withdraws support from Estrada, and moremembers of the Executive branch resign. Estrada agrees to holding a snapelection for President “where he would not be a candidate.”

o January 20, 2001: Estrada’s and Arroyo’s advisers start negotiations on a“peaceful and orderly transfer of power,” only to be cut short by Arroyo’s

oathtaking as the 14th President of the Philippines. That same day, Estradaand his family leave Malacañang. Estrada releases a statement which saidthat he was leaving Malacañang “for the sake of peace and in order to beginthe healing process of our nation.” He also sends a letter to both chambersof Congress saying that he “[is] unable to exercise the powers and duties of[his] office.”

o January 22, 2001: Congress issues a Resolution recognizing and expressingsupport for the Arroyo presidency. Other countries expressed the same.

o February 6, 2001: Sen. Teofisto Guingona is nominated by Arroyo to be herVice-President



o February 7, 2001: Senate passed Resolution No. 83 terminating theImpeachment Court.

What the parties to this case did:

o February 5, 2001: Estrada files a petition for prohibition with a prayer for awrit or preliminary injunction to enjoin Ombudsman Desierto from continuingthe probe on the criminal cases filed against him (OMB Case No. 0-00-1629

1754-1758), supposedly until his term as President is over.o February 6, 2001: Estrada files another petition, this time a quo warranto

petition, against Arroyo. He wanted to be confirmed as the “lawful andincumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines” and Arroyo only astemporary / acting president until he is able to resume his duties.

o February 24, 2001: Respondents file their replies to Estrada’s consolidatedpetitions.

1. Petitioner’s Arguments:

• He has not resigned as President yet, and so Arroyo’s presidencywas void since the position was not vacant at the time she was

sworn in.• He is only temporarily unable to fulfill his duties as President, and

that he is merely on leave.

• Given the above arguments, Estrada is still President, especiallysince he was never impeached, and he thus enjoys PresidentiaImmunity from all kinds of suit.

• The Ombudsman has to stop the investigation since he hadalready developed a bias against him (Estrada) from the“barrage of prejudicial publicity on his guilt.”

2. Respondents’ Argument:

• The cases pose a political question (“ ‘the legitimacy of the

Arroyo administration’ ”) and are therefore out of the Court’s jurisdiction, especially since Arroyo became president throughpeople power, and has already been recognized as such by othergovernments. They compare the present case with Aquino’s“revolutionary government” (Lawyers League for a BetterPhilippines v. Aquino).

Issue:Whether or not Estrada is merely a President on leave, which makes Arroyo just an

Acting President. (Whether Estrada resigned from his position)

Held:Estrada resigned from his position. There are two elements that must be present to

consider someone to have resigned: first, the intent to resign, and second, the act/s ofrelinquishment. Both elements were evident in Estrada’s actuations before he leftMalacañang, and so he must be considered to have resigned.

o Using the Totality Test (i.e., the totality of prior, contemporaneous andposterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing material relevance onthe issue), the Court found that Estrada’s acts to be tantamount to hisresignation.



o For intent: the Court mainly used Angara’s Diary, “Final Days of JosephEjercito Estrada,” in order to intuit Estrada’s intent. The Diary, which waspublished in a major publication, described Estrada’s acts following themassive withdrawal of support by former Estrada allies. Here, Estrada isquoted to have proposed a snap election of which he would not be a partHe was also shown to have conceded to the idea that he had to resign.

o For acts of relinquishment: the Court enumerated five.

a. Estrada acknowledged Arroyo’s oath-taking as President of theRepublic.

b. He said he was leaving the seat of presidency for the sake of peace butdid not say that he would return or that he was leaving onlytemporarily. He did not specify what kind of inability it was thatprevented him from discharging his presidential duties at that time.

c. He thanked the people for the opportunity to serve them. The Courttook this as a “past opportunity.”

d. He also said he was ready for any future challenge, and the Court tookto mean “a future challenge after occupying the [presidency].”

e. He called on his supporters to join efforts at reconciliation andsolidarity. The Court said that these would not be possible if Estradarefuses to give up the presidency.

o Estrada also argues that he could not have resigned as a matter of law, sinceSection 12 of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) prohibits theresignation or retirement of any public officer pending a criminal oradministrative investigation for any case filed against him under RA 3019 orthe Revised Penal Code’s provisions on bribery . The Court interpreted thisprovision according to the intent of the lawmakers, and that is that theprovision was included supposedly to “prevent the act of resignation oretirement from being used … as a protective shield to stop the investigationof a pending criminal or administrative case against him and to prevent hisprosecution under [RA 3019]…” Estrada therefore cannot invoke thisprovision to violate the very practice it was supposed to prevent.

21127266-estrada-v-desierto

Documents