Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Estrada vs. Arroyo

    Uploaded by

    Krystal Go
    The Supreme Court dismissed former President Estrada's petition challenging Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as the 14th President of the Philippines. The Court ruled that Estrada resigned the presidency based on his letter acknowledging Arroyo's oath and intention shown by leaving Malacañang Palace. Congress recognized Arroyo as President, implying Estrada's inability was no longer temporary. The Court cannot review this political question. Further, conviction in impeachment is not required for criminal prosecution. Presidential immunity does not cover illegal acts outside official duties. There was not enough evidence to enjoin the Ombudsman's preliminary investigation of Estrada.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Estrada vs. Arroyo

    Uploaded by

    Krystal Go
    9 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court dismissed former President Estrada's petition challenging Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as the 14th President of the Philippines. The Court ruled that Estrada resigned the presidency based on his letter acknowledging Arroyo's oath and intention shown by leaving Malacañang Palace. Congress recognized Arroyo as President, implying Estrada's inability was no longer temporary. The Court cannot review this political question. Further, conviction in impeachment is not required for criminal prosecution. Presidential immunity does not cover illegal acts outside official duties. There was not enough evidence to enjoin the Ombudsman's preliminary investigation of Estrada.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court dismissed former President Estrada's petition challenging Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as the 14th President of the Philippines. The Court ruled that Estrada resigned the presidency based on his letter acknowledging Arroyo's oath and intention shown by leaving Malacañang Palace. Congress recognized Arroyo as President, implying Estrada's inability was no longer temporary. The Court cannot review this political question. Further, conviction in impeachment is not required for criminal prosecution. Presidential immunity does not cover illegal acts outside official duties. There was not enough evidence to enjoin the Ombudsman's preliminary investigation of Estrada.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    9 views2 pages

    Estrada vs. Arroyo

    Uploaded by

    Krystal Go
    The Supreme Court dismissed former President Estrada's petition challenging Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as the 14th President of the Philippines. The Court ruled that Estrada resigned the presidency based on his letter acknowledging Arroyo's oath and intention shown by leaving Malacañang Palace. Congress recognized Arroyo as President, implying Estrada's inability was no longer temporary. The Court cannot review this political question. Further, conviction in impeachment is not required for criminal prosecution. Presidential immunity does not cover illegal acts outside official duties. There was not enough evidence to enjoin the Ombudsman's preliminary investigation of Estrada.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Estrada vs.

    Arroyo
    GR No. 146738, March 2, 2001
    FACTS:
    While impeachment proceedings were on-going against petitioner Erap and as public calls for his
    resignation intensify, with the addition of the AFP and PNP withdrawing their support of him as
    President, 2 rounds of negotiations for the peaceful and orderly transfer of power were
    conducted. However, news broke out that Chief Justice Davide would already administer the
    oath to respondent Arroyo as President, which was before petitioner could declare his stepping
    down as President.
    Thereafter, petitioner and his family hurriedly left Malacañang Palace and he issued a letter
    acknowledging Arroyo’s oath as president, but at the same time, questioning the legality and
    constitutionality of the proclamation of her as President.
    Public and official acknowledgments of Arroyo’s presidency were received.
    Erap filed a petition seeking to enjoin the Ombudsman from conducting any further proceedings
    regarding the cases filed against him, as well as with a prayer for judgment that Arroyo is only in
    an acting capacity and that he is still the lawful and incumbent President temporarily unable to
    discharge his official duties.

    ISSUES:
    Whether Erap is a President on leave while respondent Arroyo is an Acting President.

    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.

    RULING:

    The petition challenging respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as the de jure 14 th President is


    dismissed.

    The principal issues for resolution require the proper interpretation of certain provisions in the
    1987 Constitution, notably section 1 of Article II, and section 8 of Article VII, and the allocation
    of governmental powers under section 11 of Article VII. The issues likewise call for a ruling on
    the scope of presidential immunity from suit.

    The Court held that the President is deemed to have resigned since he issued a letter implying his
    resignation and by virtue of the totality of his acts and the intention thereof.

    Moreover, both houses of Congress have recognized respondent Arroyo as the President.
    Implicitly clear in that recognition is the premise that the inability of petitioner Estrada is no
    longer temporary. Congress has clearly rejected petitioner's claim of inability. The Court has no
    jurisdiction to review the claim of temporary inability of petitioner Estrada and thereafter revise
    the decision of both Houses of Congress recognizing respondent Arroyo as president of the
    Philippines, as this is a political question.

    Contrary to petitioner’s claims, conviction in the impeachment trial is not required for petitioner
    to be sued by complaints filed with the Ombudsman. Resignation from the presidential post
    during the pendency of an impeachment proceeding, and thereby rendering the impeachment
    trial moot and academic, cannot be used as an excuse for the resigned president to be immune
    from cases filed against him with the Ombudsman.

    Immunity from suit, on the other hand, only means that he may not be mulcted for the
    consequences of an act executed in the performance of his official duties and within his
    jurisdiction or authority. It does not cover illegal acts done beyond this scope.

    There is not enough evidence to warrant this Court to enjoin the preliminary investigation of the
    petitioner by the respondent Ombudsman. Petitioner needs to show proof that the DOJ Panel or
    the Ombudsman’s judgment has been tainted or influenced by the press before the court could
    seriously consider the argument of prejudicial publicity.

    You might also like