Estrada vs Desierto G.R. No. 146710-15; Estrada vs Arroyo G.R. No.

146738, March 2 2001

[Immunity from Suit; Resignation of the President; Justiciable controversy]

FACTS:
It began in October 2000 when allegations of wrong doings involving bribe-taking, illegal gambling, and other forms of corruption
were made against Estrada before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. On November 13, 2000, Estrada was impeached by the Hor
and, on December 7, impeachment proceedings were begun in the Senate during which more serious allegations of graft and
corruption against Estrada were made and were only stopped on January 16, 2001 when 11 senators, sympathetic to the President,
succeeded in suppressing damaging evidence against Estrada. As a result, the impeachment trial was thrown into an uproar as the
entire prosecution panel walked out and Senate President Pimentel resigned after casting his vote against Estrada.

On January 19, PNP and the AFP also withdrew their support for Estrada and joined the crowd at EDSA Shrine. Estrada called for a
snap presidential election to be held concurrently with congressional and local elections on May 14, 2001. He added that he will not
run in this election. 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 Malacaang Palace. Erap, after his fall, filed petition for prohibition with prayer for WPI. It sought to enjoin the respondent
Ombudsman from conducting any further proceedings in cases filed against him not until his term as president ends. He also prayed
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.

ISSUE(S):
1. WoN the petition presents a justiciable controversy.
2. WoN Estrada resigned as President.
3. WoN Arroyo is only an acting President.
4. WoN the President enjoys immunity from suit.
5. WoN the prosecution of Estrada should be enjoined due to prejudicial publicity.

RULING:

1. Political questions- "to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity,
or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is
concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a particular measure."
Legal distinction between EDSA People Power I EDSA People Power II:
EDSA I EDSA II
exercise of people power of freedom of
speech and freedom of assemblyto
exercise of the people power of petition the government for redress of
revolution which overthrew the whole grievances which only affected the office of
government. the President.
extra constitutional and the legitimacy of intra constitutional and the resignation of
the new government that resulted from it the sitting President that it caused and the
cannot be the subject of judicial review succession of the Vice President as
President are subject to judicial review.
presented a political question; involves legal questions.
The cases at bar pose legal and not political questions. The principal issues for resolution require the proper interpretation of certain
provisions in the 1987 Constitution: Sec 1 of Art II, and Sec 8 of Art VII, and the allocation of governmental powers under Sec 11 of
Art VII. The issues likewise call for a ruling on the scope of presidential immunity from suit. They also involve the correct calibration
of the right of petitioner against prejudicial publicity.

2. Elements of valid resignation: (a)an intent to resign and (b) acts of relinquishment. Both were present when President Estrada left
the Palace.
Totality of prior contemporaneous posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing material relevant issuesPresident Estrada is
deemed to have resigned constructive resignation.
SC declared that the resignation of President Estrada could not be doubted as confirmed by his leaving Malacaan Palace. In the press
release containing his final statement:
1. He acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President;
2. 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 disability and that he was going to reassume the Presidency as soon as the disability disappears);
3. He expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them as President (without doubt referring to the past
opportunity);
4. He assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may come in the same service of the country;
5. He called on his supporters to join him in promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity.
Intent to resignmust be accompanied by act of relinquishmentact or omission before, during and after January 20, 2001.

3. The Congress passed House Resolution No. 176 expressly stating its support to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the
Republic of the Philippines and subsequently passed H.R. 178 confirms the nomination of Teofisto T. Guingona Jr. As Vice President.
Senate passed HR No. 83 declaring the Impeachment Courts as Functius Officio and has been terminated. It is clear is that both
houses of Congress recognized Arroyo as the President. Implicitly clear in that recognition is the premise that the inability of Estrada
is no longer temporary as the Congress has clearly rejected his claim of inability.
The Court therefore cannot exercise its judicial power for this is political in nature and addressed solely to Congress by constitutional
fiat. In fine, even if Estrada 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. That claim has been laid to rest by Congress and the decision that Arroyo is the
de jure, president made by a co-equal branch of government cannot be reviewed by this Court.
4. 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 alleged mantle of immunity of
a non-sitting president. He cannot cite any decision of this Court licensing the President to commit criminal acts and wrapping him
with post-tenure immunity from liability. 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 trespasser.

5. No. Case law will tell us that a right to a fair trial and the free press are incompatible. Also, since our justice system does not use the
jury system, the judge, who is a learned and legally enlightened individual, cannot be easily manipulated by mere publicity. The Court
also said that Estrada did not present enough evidence to show that the publicity given the trial has influenced the judge so as to render
the judge unable to perform. Finally, the Court said that the cases against Estrada were still undergoing preliminary investigation, so
the publicity of the case would really have no permanent effect on the judge and that the prosecutor should be more concerned with
justice and less with prosecution.
Categories

CASE DIGEST: NATIONAL ARTIST FOR LITERATURE VIRGILIO ALMARIO, et al. v. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, et al.

FACTS:

On April 27, 1972, former President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1001and, upon recommendation of
the Board of Trustees of the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP), created the category of Award and Decoration of
National Artist to be awarded to Filipinos who have made distinct contributions to arts and letters. In the same issuance,
Fernando Amorsolo was declared as the first National Artist.

On April 3, 1992, Republic Act No. 7356, otherwise known as the Law Creating the National Commission for Culture and
the Arts, was signed into law. It established the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) and gave it an
extensive mandate over the development, promotion and preservation of the Filipino national culture and arts and the
Filipino cultural heritage.

CCP Board of Trustees and the NCCA have been mandated by law to promote, develop and protect the Philippine
national culture and the arts, and authorized to give awards to deserving Filipino artists, the two bodies decided to team
up and jointly administer the National Artists Award.

On April 3, 2009, the First Deliberation Panel met. A total of 87 nominees were considered during the deliberation and a
preliminary shortlist of 32 names was compiled.

On April 23, 2009, the Second Deliberation Panel shortlisted 13 out of the 32 names in the preliminary shortlist.On May
6, 2009, the final deliberation was conducted by the 30-member Final Deliberation Panel comprised of the CCP Board of
Trustees and the NCCA Board of Commissioners and the living National Artists.From the 13 names in the second
shortlist, a final list of four names was agreed upon namely: Manuel Conde, Ramon Santos, Lazaro Francisco and
Federico Aguilar-Alcuaz.

CCP and NCCA submitted this recommendation to the President. According to respondents, the aforementioned letter
was referred by the Office of the President to the Committee on Honors. Meanwhile, the Office of the President
allegedly received nominations from various sectors, cultural groups and individuals strongly endorsing private
respondents Cecile Guidote-Alvarez, Carlo Magno Jose Caparas, Francisco Masa and Jose Moreno. The Committee on
Honors purportedly processed these nominations and invited resource persons to validate the qualifications and
credentials of the nominees.

Acting on this recommendation, Proclamation No. 1823 declaring Manuel Conde a National Artist was issued on June 30,
2009. Subsequently, on July 6, 2009, Proclamation Nos. 1824 to 1829 were issued declaring Lazaro Francisco, Federico
AguilarAlcuaz and private respondents Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Masa and Moreno, respectively, as National Artists.
This was subsequently announced to the public by then Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita on July 29, 2009.

Convinced that, by law, it is the exclusive province of the NCCA Board of Commissioners and the CCP Board of Trustees
to select those who will be conferred the Order of National Artists and to set the standard for entry into that select
group, petitioners instituted this petition for prohibition, certiorari and injunction (with prayer for restraining order)
praying that the Order of National Artists be conferred on Dr. Santos and that the conferment of the Order of National
Artists on respondents Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Masa and Moreno be enjoined and declared to have been rendered in
grave abuse of discretion.

All of the petitioners claim that former President Macapagal-Arroyo gravely abused her discretion in disregarding the
results of the rigorous screening and selection process for the Order of National Artists and in substituting her own
choice for those of the Deliberation Panels. According to petitioners, the Presidents discretion to name National Artists
is not absolute but limited. In particular, her discretion on the matter cannot be exercised in the absence of or against
the recommendation of the NCCA and the CCP.

ISSUE: Was there grave abuse of discretion committed by former President Arroyo?

HELD:

Legal Standing

The parties who assail the constitutionality or legality of a statute or an official act must have a direct and personal
interest. They must show not only that the law or any governmental act is invalid, but also that they sustained or are in
immediate danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that they suffer
thereby in some indefinite way.

In this case, the petitioning National Artists will be denied some right or privilege to which they are entitled as members
of the Order of National Artists as a result of the conferment of the award on respondents Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas,
Masa and Moreno. In particular, they will be denied the privilege of exclusive membership in the Order of National
Artists.

Equal Protection

It should be recalled too that respondent Guidote-Alvarez was disqualified to be nominated for being the Executive
Director of the NCCA at that time while respondents Masa and Caparas did not make it to the preliminary shortlist and
respondent Moreno was not included in the second shortlist. Yet, the four of them were treated differently and
considered favorably when they were exempted from the rigorous screening process of the NCCA and the CCP and
conferred the Order of National Artists.

The special treatment accorded to respondents Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Masa and Moreno fails to pass rational
scrutiny.No real and substantial distinction between respondents and petitioner Abad has been shown that would justify
deviating from the laws, guidelines and established procedures, and placing respondents in an exceptional position. The
undue classification was not germane to the purpose of the law. Instead, it contradicted the law and well-established
guidelines, rules and regulations meant to carry the law into effect. While petitioner Abad cannot claim entitlement to
the Order of National Artists, he is entitled to be given an equal opportunity to vie for that honor. In view of the
foregoing, there was a violation of petitioner Abads right to equal protection, an interest that is substantial enough to
confer him standing in this case.

Limits of the Presidents Discretion

The "power to recommend" includes the power to give "advice, exhortation or indorsement, which is essentially
persuasive in character, not binding upon the party to whom it is made."

Thus, in the matter of the conferment of the Order of National Artists, the President may or may not adopt the
recommendation or advice of the NCCA and the CCP Boards. In other words, the advice of the NCCA and the CCP is
subject to the Presidents discretion.

Nevertheless, the Presidents discretion on the matter is not totally unfettered, nor the role of the NCCA and the CCP
Boards meaningless. The Presidents power must be exercised in accordance with existing laws. Section 17, Article VII of
the Constitution prescribes faithful execution of the laws by the President

The Presidents discretion in the conferment of the Order of National Artists should be exercised in accordance with the
duty to faithfully execute the relevant laws. The faithful execution clause is best construed as an obligation imposed on
the President, not a separate grant of power.

In this connection, the powers granted to the NCCA and the CCP Boards in connection with the conferment of the Order
of National Artists by executive issuances were institutionalized by two laws, namely, Presidential Decree No. 208 dated
June 7, 1973 and Republic Act No. 7356. In particular, Proclamation No. 1144 dated May 15, 1973 constituted the CCP
Board as the National Artists Awards Committee and tasked it to "administer the conferment of the category of National
Artist" upon deserving Filipino artists with the mandate to "draft the rules to guide its deliberations in the choice of
National Artists".

By virtue of their respective statutory mandates in connection with the conferment of the National Artist Award, the
NCCA and the CCP decided to work together and jointly administer the National Artist Award. They reviewed the
guidelines for the nomination, selection and administration of the National Artist Award. An administrative regulation
adopted pursuant to law has the force and effect of law. Thus, the rules, guidelines and policies regarding the Order of
National Artists jointly issued by the CCP Board of Trustees and the NCCA pursuant to their respective statutory
mandates have the force and effect of law. Until set aside, they are binding upon executive and administrative
agencies,including the President himself/herself as chief executor of laws.

In view of the various stages of deliberation in the selection process and as a consequence of his/her duty to faithfully
enforce the relevant laws, the discretion of the President in the matter of the Order of National Artists is confined to the
names submitted to him/her by the NCCA and the CCP Boards. This means that the President could not have considered
conferment of the Order of National Artists on any person not considered and recommended by the NCCA and the CCP
Boards. That is the proper import of the provision of Executive Order No. 435, s. 2005, that the NCCA and the CCP "shall
advise the President on the conferment of the Order of National Artists." Applying this to the instant case, the former
President could not have properly considered respondents Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Masa and Moreno, as their names
were not recommended by the NCCA and the CCP Boards. Otherwise, not only will the stringent selection and
meticulous screening process be rendered futile, the respective mandates of the NCCA and the CCP Board of Trustees
under relevant laws to administer the conferment of Order of National Artists, draft the rules and regulations to guide
its deliberations, formulate and implement policies and plans, and undertake any and all necessary measures in that
regard will also become meaningless.

Proclamation Nos. 1826 to 1829 dated July 6, 2009 proclaiming respondents Cecile Guidote-Alvarez, Carlo Magno Jose
Caparas, Francisco Masa, and Jose Moreno, respectively, as National Artists are declared INVALID and SET ASIDE for
having been issued with grave abuse of discretion

Ocampo v. Enriquez

Facts: During 2016 presidential campaign, Duterte publicly announced he would allow the burial of Marcos in LNMB.
After winning the elections, through Sec. of National DefenseLorenzana, a Memorandum was issued to Chief of Staff of
AFP, Gen. Visaya, for the interment of Marcos, in compliance with the verbal order of the President to implement his
election campaign promise. AFP rear Admiral Enriquez issued directives to the Philippine Army Commanding General to
provide services, honors, and other courtesies for the late Former President Marcos. Dissatisfied with the issuances and
directives, various petitioners filed petition for Certiorari and Prohibition.

- SaturninoOcampo, et. al., in their capacity as human rights advocates and human rights violations victims

- Rene Saguisag and his son, as members of the Bar and human rights lawyers

- EdcelLagman, as member of Congress

- Loretta Pargas-Rosales, former Chairperson of CHr, as victims of State-sanctioned human rights violations
during martial law

- Heherson Alvarez, former Senator, as concerned citizens and taxpayers

- ZairaBaniaga, as concerned citizens and taxpayers

 - AlgamarLatiph, former chairperson of regional human rights commission ARMM, on behalf of Moros who are
victims during martial law

- Leila De Lima, as Senator

Issues

PROCEDURAL

1. Whether Pres. Dutertes determination to have the remains of Marcos interred at LNMB poses a justiciable
controversy

NO. The Court agrees with the OSG that Pres. Dutertes decision to have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB
involves a political question that is not a justiciable controversy. It is also under the Constitution and EO 292 (Admin
Code of 1987) to allow the interment in LNMB which is a land of public domain devoted for national military cemetery
and military shrine purposes.It is based on his wisdom that it shall promote national healing and forgiveness. It is outside
the ambit of judicial review.

2. Whether petitioners have locus standi to file the instant petitions

NO. Petitioners failed to show that they have suffered or will suffer direct or personal injury as a result of the interment
of Marcos at the LNMB. The interment of Marcos would have no profound effect on the political, economic, and other
aspects of our national life considering that more than 27 years since his death and 30 years after his ouster have
already passed. Petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear and imminent threat to their fundamental constitutional rights

3. Whether petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies and hierarchy of courts

YES. Petitioners violated the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies and hierarchy of courts. They should
seek reconsideration of the assailed memorandum and directive before the Secretary of National Defense and give them
the opportunity to correct themselves, if warranted. If petitioners are still dissatisfied with the Secretarys decision they
could have elevated it before the Office of the President which has control and supervision of the DND.

Even though there are exceptions that would warrant a direct resort to the Supreme Court under exceptional cases, the
petitioners cannot brush aside the doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts that requires such petitions to be filed first with the
proper RTC which are not only trier of facts but can also resolve questions of law in the exercise of its original and
concurrent jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, and has the power to issue restraining
order and injunction when proven necessary.

In fine, the petitions at bar should be dismissed on procedural grounds alone.

SUBSTANTIVE

1. Whether the issuance and implementation of the memorandum violates the Constitution, domestic and
international law

NO. The Presidents decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is in accordance with the Constitution, the law or
jurisprudence.

Laws and Constitutional provisions cited by petitioner:

Art. II: Sec. 2, 11, 13, 23, 26, 27, and 28 not self-executory

Art. VII: Sec. 17 Faithful execution clause, it is consistent with President Dutertes mandate, the burial does not
contravene RA 289, RA 10368, and the international human rights laws cited by petitioner

Art. XIV: Sec. 3(2) reliance in this provision is misplaced it refers to duty of educ institutions to teach values of
nationalism and patriotism and respect for human rights

Art. XI: Sec. 1 not self-executory but RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees), RA 7080 (Penalizing Plunder), RA 9485 (Anti-red Tape Act) was enacted pursuant to this

Art. XVIII: Sec. 26 transitory provision and freeze order to recover ill-gotten wealth
RA 289 authorized the construction of a National Pantheon as a burial place for Presidents, National Heroes, and
Patriots for the perpetuation of the memory and for the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of generations
still unborn.

Petitioners failed to provide legal and historical bases that LNMB and National Pantheon is one and the same. LNMB is
distinct from the burial place envisioned in rA 289. The National Pantheon does not exist at present. Also to apply the
standard that LNMB is reserved only for the decent and brave or hero, it will put into question all the mortal remains
therein. The name of LNMB is a misnomer, interment of Marcos remain does not confer upon him the status of a hero.

RA 10368 (compensation for Human rights violations victims during Marcos regime)recognizes the human rights
violations committed and gives them reparation. However, the court cannot subscribe to petitioners logic that the
reparation includes the prohibition of Marcos interment when it is not provided. It is undue to extend the law beyond
what it contemplates. Legislators could have easily inserted a provision prohibiting Marcos internment as reparation but
they did not. The law is silent and should remain to be so. We cannot read into law what is simply not there. That would
be tantamount to judicial legislation.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights these are principles that call for an enactment of legislative
measures. The PH is compliant with its international obligations evident by the various RAs, exec issuances, and even in
the Constitution

Our nations history will not be instantly revised by a single resolve of President Duterte to bury Marcos at the LNMB.
Whetherpetititoners admit it or not, the lessons of Martial Law are already engraved, albeit in varying degrees, in the
hearts and minds of the present generation of Filipinos.

2. Whether the Sec. of National Defense and AFP rear admiral commited grave abuse of discretion when they
issued the memorandum and directive in compliance with the verbal order of Pres. Duterte to implement his
election campaign promise of Marcos interment in LNMB

The Presidents decision to bury Marcos at the LNMB is not done whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill
will or personal bias.Presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty prevails over the petitioners allegation
of Dutertesutangnaloob or bayadutang to the Marcoses. Petitioners should establish such claims but failed to do so.
Then again, the court is not a trier of facts.

3. Whether historical facts, laws enacted to recover ill-gotten wealth of Marcos and his cronies, and
pronouncement of SC, nullifies his entitlement as a soldier and former President to interment at the LNMB

National Shrines are governed by NHCP, military shrines are not. They are governed by PVAO of DND. LNMB is a military
shrine.

Magsaysay issued EO 77 orders remains of war dead interred at Bataan to be reinterred in McKinley to minimize
expenses and accessibility to widows.

Magsaysay issued Proc. 86 changing the name to LNMB

Garcia issued Proc. 423, Marcos issued Proc and General Orders, Cory issued EOs too. The point is the PVAO manages
military shrines which is under DND which is under the Office of the President

AFP Regulations G 161-375 who may be interred

a.) Medal of Valor awardee

b.) Presidents or Commander-in-Chief, AFP

c.) Sec. of National Defense

d.) Chief of Staff, AFP

e.) General/Flag Officers, AFP

f.) Active and retired military personnel

 g.) Gov dignitaries, statesman,national artists and others as long as approved by the C-i-C, Congress or Sec. of
National defense

h.) Widows of former presidents

Petitioners did not dispute that Marcos was a former President and C-i-C, legislator, Sec. of National Defense, veteran,
medal of valor awardee.

Marcos does not have any disqualification. He was not convicted of moral turpitude nor dishonourably discharged.

Marcos rendered significant active military service and military-related activities.

THOSE WHO Are NOT QUALIFIED:

a.) Personnel who are dishonorably discharged

b.) Convicted of final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude

Moral Turpitude conduct that is contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals.

4. Whether the Marcos family waived the burial of remains of Marcos in LNMB when they entered into agreement
with Gov. of PH as to the condition and procedures by which his remains shall be brought back to and interred in
the PH.

The presidential power of control over the Executive Branch of Government is a self-executing provision of the
Constitution nor its exercise belimted by legislature. As the incumbent President, Duterte is not bound by the 1992
Agreement between ramos and the Marcos family to have the remains of Marcos interred in IlocosNorte, he is free to
amend, revoke orrescind political agreements entered into by his predecessors, and to determine policies which he
considers, based on informed judgment and presumed wisdom, will be most effective in carrying out his mandate.

In sum, there is no clear constitutional or legal basis to hold that there was grave abuse of discretion which would justify
the Court to interpose its authority to check and override an act entrusted to the judgment of another branch. The
President through respondents acted within the bounds of law and jurisprudence. The Court must uphold what is legal
and just and that is not to deny Marcos of his rightful place in LNMB

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petitions are DISMISSED. Necessarily, the Status Quo Ante Order is hereby
LIFTED.