8/10/2019 73. Estrada v Desierto

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/73-estrada-v-desierto 1/2

Estrada vs Desierto G.R. No. 146710-15; Estrada vs Arroyo G.R. No. 146738, March 2,

2001

FACTS:

On November 13, 2000, The House of Representatives transmitted the Articles of Impeachment

signed by 115 representatives, or more than 1/3 of all the members of the House ofRepresentatives to the Senate. On December 7, 2000, the impeachment proceedings began in the

Senate during which more serious allegations of graft and corruption against Estrada were made.

On January 16, 2001, the impeachment trial stopped when 11 senators, in sympathy with the

President, voted to stop the opening of an envelope which allegedly has damaging evidence

against Estrada. As a result, the impeachment trial was thrown into an uproar as the entire

 prosecution panel walked out and then Senate President Pimentel resigned after casting his vote

against Estrada.

On January 19, Estrada fell from power. At 1:20 p.m. of said day, the Erap informed then

Executive Secretary Edgardo Angara that General Angelo Reyes, Chief of Staff of the ArmedForces of the Philippines, had defected. January. On January 20, SC declared that the seat of

 presidency was vacant, saying that Estrada “constructively resigned his post”. At noon, Arroyo

took her oath of office in the presence of the crowd at EDSA as the 14th President. Estrada and

his family later left Malacañang Palace. Estrada, after his fall, filed a petition for prohibition with

 prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction. He sought to enjoin the Ombudsman from conducting

any further proceedings in the cases that may be filed in his office, until after his term as

President is over and only if legally warranted.” Thru another counsel, Estrada, on February 6,

filed a case for Quo Warranto praying for judgment confirming Estrada to be the lawful and

incumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge the duties

of his office, and declaring Arroyo 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.

ISSUE/S:

1.  W/N Estrada validly resigned

2.  W/N Estrada enjoyed immunity from suit

RULING:

1.  Yes. The resignation of President Estrada could not be doubted as confirmed by his

leaving Malacañan Palace. The elements of a valid resignation are: (a) an intent to resign

and (b) acts of relinquishment. Both were present when President Estrada left the Palace.

He constructively resigned. In the press release containing his final statement:

a.  He acknowledged the oath-taking of the Arroyo as President.

 b.  He emphasized he was leaving the Palace for the sake of peace and in order to

 begin the healing process (he did not say that he was leaving due to any kind of

8/10/2019 73. Estrada v Desierto

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/73-estrada-v-desierto 2/2

disability and that he was going to reassume the Presidency as soon as the

disability disappears);

c.  He expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them as

President (without doubt referring to the past opportunity);

d.  He assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may come in the

same service of the country;e.  He called on his supporters to join him in promotion of a constructive national

spirit of reconciliation and solidarity.

2.   No. Estrada is not immune for suit because he is not the president anymore. “Incumbent

Presidents are immune from suit or from being brought to court during the period of their

incumbency and tenure” but not beyond.  Considering the peculiar circumstance that the

impeachment process against the petitioner has been aborted and thereafter he lost the

 presidency, petitioner Estrada cannot demand as a condition sine qua non to his criminal

 prosecution before the Ombudsman that he be convicted in the impeachment

 proceedings.

The cases filed against 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. 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.