Estrada v. Desierto | G.R. Nos.
146710-15 (including MR) | March 2, 2001 | Puno, J.
Re: Impeachment of the President |
FACTS:
- On the line in the cases at bar is the
office of the President. Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada (Pres. Erap) alleges
that he is the President on leave while respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
claims she is the President.
- From the beginning of his term, petitioner
was plagued wtih problems that slowly eroded his popularity. His sharp descent
from power started on October 4, 2000 when Ilocos Sur governor Chavit Singson
accused the petitioner of receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords.
- Senator Teofisto Guingona Jr, then the
Senate Minority Leader, took the floor with a privilege speech entitled I
Accuse. He accused the petitioner of receiving some P220 million in jueteng money
from Governor Singson from November 1998 to August 2000.
- The House Committee on Public Order and
Security, then headed by Representative Roilo Golez, decided to investigate the
expos of Governor Singson while other representatives moved to impeach the
petitioner.
- Former presidents Cory Aquino and Fidel
Ramos demanded Pres. Erap to resign. Respondent GMA resigned as Secretary of DSWS
and asked for petitioner’s resignation. On Nov. 1, 4 senior exonomic advisers
also resigned. Mar Roxas resigned as DTI Secretary.
- At the end of November, the Articles of
Impeachment were transmitted, signed by more than 1/3 of the Congressmen.
- 21 Senators took their oath as judges
with SC Justice Davide presiding. Ther were day-to-day trials that were covered
by live TV. The peak of the hearings was reached by the testimony of Clarissa
Ocampo, SVP of Equitable-PCI Bank. She testified that she was 1 foot away when
Pres. Era affixed the signature “Jose Velarde” on documents involving a P500M
investment agreement with their bank. Atty. Espiritu who served as Erap’s
Secretary of Finance took the witness stand and alleged Erap jointly owned BW
Resources with Mr. Dante Tan who was facing charges of insider trading.
- On January 16, when by a vote of 11-10,
the senator judges ruled against the opening of the second envelope which
allegedly contained evidence showng Erap had P3M in a private account.
- Prosecutors walked out in protest of the ruling and in disgust, Senator
Pimentel resigned as Senate President. The ruling made 10pm was met with
spontaneous outburst of anger that hit the streets of the metropolis. By midnight,
thousands had assembled at EDSA Shrine. This escalated with mass resignations
of multiple officers of PNP, AFP and the cabinet of the President. Rallies grew
larger around Metro Manila and there was no turning back.
- On January 20, first round of
negotiations for the peaceful and orderly transfer of power transpired. News
then broke out that CJ Davide would administer the oath to respondent Arroyo at
high noon at the EDSA Shrine.
- President Erap and his family hurried
left the palace, issuing two statements between 2 days, delving on his wishes
for “reconciliation and national solidarity and that he is unable to exercise
the powers and duties of the office. President
Arroyo took oath for office and also appointed members of her Cabinet as well
as ambassadors and special envoys. Foreign gov’ts recognized the government
soon after. GMA nominated Senator Teofisto Guingona, Jr. as her VP. Erap faced multiple legal problems soon
after for plunder, graft and corruption.
- Thus, the stage for the cases at bar
was set. On February 5, petitioner filed with this Court GR No. 146710-15,
a petition for prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary
injunction.
ISSUES and HELD:
1) Whether
or not petitioner Estrada is a President on leave while respondent Arroyo is an
Acting President. [No]
An examination
of section 11, Article VII is in order. It
provides:
SEC.
11. Whenever the President transmit to the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits
to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be
discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President.
If the Congress, within ten days after receipt
of the last written declaration, or, if not in session within twelve days after
it is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses,
voting separately, that the President is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office, the Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise, the
President shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office.
Clearly, the Court cannot pass upon petitioners’
claim of inability to discharge the powers and duties of the presidency. The
question is political in nature and addressed solely to Congress by
constitutional fiat. It is a political issue which
cannot be decided by this Court without transgressing the principle of
separation of powers.
2) Whether
or not Erap resigned from office. [Yes]
A resignation is not governed by any
formal requirements, what is required merely is that there is an intent to
resign and acts of relinquishment. Resignation
can be oral, written,
expressed or implied.
Petitioner did not write any formal
letter of resignation before he evacuated
Malacañang Palace in the Afternoon
of January 20, 2001. However, using totality test (via
his acts and omissions) as to determine whether or not he resigned has it can
be shown that clearly, on his part, President Estrada INTENDED TO RESIGN. In fine, 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.
Acts which showed his intention to resign:
1. leaving the Palace for the sake of peace and in order;
2. expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to
serve them;
3. called on his supporters to join him in promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity.
4. Recognition of the oath-taking of PGMA;
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) Whether or not Erap enjoys immunity from suit. [No]
The cases filed against
petitioner Estrada are criminal
in character. They involve plunder, bribery
and graft and
corruption. By no stretch
of the imagination
can these crimes, especially
plunder which carries
the death penalty,
be covered by
the allege mantle
of immunity of a non-sitting
president.
Petitioner cannot cite any decision of this Court
licensing the President to commit criminal
acts and wrapping him with post-tenure immunity from liability.
It will be anomalous to hold that immunity is an
inoculation from liability for unlawful
acts and omissions. The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts
of the State and the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such but
stands in the same footing as any other trespasser. Indeed, a critical reading
of current literature on executive immunity will reveal a judicial
disinclination to expand the
privilege especially when it impedes the search for truth or impairs the vindication of a right. A public office
is a public trust
DISPOSITION:
DISMISSED
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION (APRIL 3, 2001)
ISSUE: TEMPORARY INABILITY:
The
MR Affirmed SC’s
original decision. The
court ruled that under section 11, Article VII of the
Constitution, the Congress has sole authority to determine the question of
whether or not there was
incapacity on part
of the President.
As such,
it was a
purely political question,
a decision that
the Court’s cannot review without violating the separation of powers.
ISSUE: A
DECLARATION OF PRESIDENTIAL
INCAPACITY CANNOT BE IMPLIED:
There
is nothing in
section 11 of Article VII
of the Constitution
which states that the declaration by Congress of the Presidents
inability must always be a
priori or before the
Vice-President assumes the presidency.
In the cases at bar, special
consideration should be given to the fact that the events
which led to
the resignation of
the petitioner happened
at express speed and culminated on a Saturday. Congress was then not
in session and
had no reasonable
opportunity to act a priori on petitioners letter claiming
inability to govern.
To
be sure, however,
the petitioner cannot
strictly maintain that
the President of the
Senate, the Honorable
Aquilino Pimentel, Jr.
and the then Speaker of the House
of Representatives, the Honorable Arnulfo P. Fuentebella, recognized
respondent Arroyo as
the constitutional successor to
the presidency post facto. Petitioner himself states that his letter alleging
his inability to
govern was received
by the Office
of the Speaker on January 20,
2001 at 8:30 A.M. and the Office of the Senate at 9 P.M. of the same day.
Respondent took her oath of office a few
minutes past 12 oclock in the afternoon of January 20. Before the oath taking, Senate
President Pimentel, Jr. and
Speaker Fuentebella had prepared a Joint Statement which
recognized GMA as president.
MR DISMISSED
Comments
Post a Comment