#41 Estrada v. Desierto - REYES

#41 ESTRADA V.
DISIERTO - REYES
TOPIC: TERMINATION OF OFFICIAL
RESIGNATION
RELATION;
FACTS:
1. On May 11, 1998, petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada
and respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was
elected as the president and vice-president,
respectively.
2. On October 20, 2000, then Ilocos Sur Governor, Luis
Chavit Singson, went on air and accused Estrada,
his family and friends, of receiving millions of pesos
from jueteng lords.
3. Various calls for resignation filled the air. Also,
several department heads resigned from their
position.
4. On November 13, the articles for impeachment
were signed by 115 representatives, more than 1/3
of all the members of HoR.
5. On November 20, Senate formally opened the
impeachment trial and it started on December 7.
6. During the trial, Clarissa Ocampo, senior vice
president of Equitable-PCI Bank testified. She said
that she was one foot away from Estrada when he
affixed the signature Jose Velarde on documents
involving a P500 million investment agreement with
their bank on February 4, 2000.
7. On January 16, 2001, there was a vote of 11-10
from the senator-judges ruling against the opening
of the second envelope which allegedly contained
the evidence showing the petitioner held P3.3
billion in a secret bank account under Jose
Velarde.
8. In protest of the ruling, several people resigned
including the senate president and the public
prosecutors in the impeachment trial. Also,
thousands of people had assembled at the EDSA

Shrine.
9. Eventually, the AFP, PNP and other major service
commanders announced their withdrawal of
support to the government.
10.On January 20, Chief Justice Davide Administered
the oath to respondent arroyo as the President of
the Philippines and Estrada and his family left
Malacaang Palace. He issued several statements
and signed a letter which stated that he is already
leaving the seat of presidency and stating that he is
unable to exercise the powers and duties of his
office.
11.GMA immediately discharged powers and duties of
the president while several cases filed against the
petitioner was set in motion.
12.On February 5, The petitioner filed a petition for
prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary
injunction. It sought to enjoin the respondent
ombudsman
from
conducting
any
further
proceedings in cases filed against him or in any
other criminal complaint that may be filed in his
office, until after his term as President is over and
only if legally warranted.
13.Estrada also filed for quo warranto praying for the
judgment confirming him to be the lawful and
incumbent President of the Republic of the
Philippines temporarily unable to discharge duties
of his office, and declaring respondent to have
taken her oath as and to be holding the Office of
the President only in an acting capacity pursuant to
the provisions of the Constitution.
ISSUES:
1. Whether Petitioner Estrada is a President on leave
while respondent Arroyo is an acting President. NO.
2. WON Petitioner is only temporarily unable to act as

president. NO.
RATIO:
FIRST ISSUE: WON Petitioner is on leave or has
resigned as the president
1. Resignation is a factual question and its elements
are the following:
a. Intent to resign
b. Intent must be coupled by acts of
relinquishment.
2. The validity of a resignation is not governed by ay
formal requirement as to form. It can be oral,
written, express or implied. As long as the
resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect.
3. facts show that petitioner did not write any formal
letter of resignation before he evacuated
Malacaang; therefore to determine whether or not
he resigned will be based from his acts and
ommissions before, during and after January 20,
2001 or by the totality of prior, contemporaneous
and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence
bearing a material relevance on the issue.
a. There was political isolation of the petitioner
due to the resignation of the members of the
executive,
judicial,
and
legislative
department;
b. Petitioner decided to call for a snap election
where he is not a candidate- indictum that
petitioner had intended to give up the
presidency at that time
c. Senators Angara and Pimentel advised
petitioner to consider the option of a
dignified exit or resignation, to which
petitioner did not disagree but said he would
never leave the country.
d. During the first negotiation between the

petitioner and Arroyo, the resignation of the
former was not a disputed point.
e. The second negotiation cements the reading
that the petitioner has resigned. Resignation
of the petitioner was treated as a given fact.
f. Resignation of petitioner was confirmed
when he left Malacaang.
g. Press release was petitioners valedictory, his
act of farewell.
4. The second letter cannot negate the resignation of
the petitioner.
5. The averment of the petitioner that he could not
resign as the president as a matter of law, pursuant
to sec. 12 of RA 3019 should be rejected.
a. A public official has the right not to serve if
he really wants to retire or resign, but it will
not cause the dismissal of the criminal or
administrative proceedings against him.
b. The cases filed with the ombudsman against
him cannot be considered pending for the
Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to act on
them at the time they were filed. Sec. 12 of
RA 3019 cannot be invoked by the petitioner
for
it
contemplates
cases
whose
investigation or prosecution do not suffer
from any insuperable legal obstacle like the
immunity from suit of a sitting president.
6. Holding the totality test, the court held that
petitioner resigned as President.
SECOND ISSUE: WON Petitioner is only temporarily
unable to act as President
1. Congress has the ultimate authority under the
Constitution to determine whether the president is
incapable of performing his functions. [IT IS A
POLITICAL QUESTION]
2. Court cannot pass upon this claim. The question is

political in nature and addressed solely to Congress
by constitutional fiat.
3. 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.
DISPOSITIVE: Petition dismissed.

#41 Estrada v. Desierto - REYES

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

#41 Estrada v. Desierto - REYES

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

#41 Estrada v. Desierto - REYES

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

#41 ESTRADA V.

thousands of people had assembled at the EDSA

2. WON Petitioner is only temporarily unable to act as

d. During the first negotiation between the

2. Court cannot pass upon this claim. The question is

President on leave on the ground that he is merely

You might also like