7.

) House speaker Villar transmitted Articles of

ESTRADA V. DESIERTO (MARCH
2001)
(Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada alleges that
he is the President of PH while respondent
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo claims she is the
president.
 May 1998 elections, petitioner Estrada was
elected President while respondent Arroyo
was elected as Vice Preident.
Impeachment
8.) Senate formally opened impeachment trial
9.) Dramatic point where Equitable PCI Bank
testified about alleged account of Estrada
under the name of Jose Velarde involving
P500 million
10.) Atty. Espiritu who served as petitioner’s
Secretary of Finance too the witness stand
and alleged that Estrada jointly owned BW
resources corporation.
11.) 11-10 senators ruled against opening
envelope which allegedly contained evidence
showing petitioners secret bank account,

THE FALL OF ERAP public and private prosecutors walked out

12.) Thousands of people assembled in EDSA (10
(Plagued by plethora of problems that slowly
km line of peope holdin candles demanding for
but surely eroded his popularity)
petitioner’s recognition
1.) Chavit Singson accusation that petitioner, his
13.) Sen.Raul Roco moved for indefinite
family and friends were receiving millions of
postponement of impeachment proceedings.
pesos from juetent lords
14.) Chief of Staff of AFP, PNP Chief Director
2.) Senator Gungona privilege speech “I accuse” :
General withdrew support.
P220 million Jueteng money
15.) Cabinet Secretaries, undersecretaries,
3.) House Committee on Public Order and
assistant secretaries and bureau chiefs quickly
Security headed by Rep. Golez decided to
resigned from post.
investigated expose by Singson. While
16.) Proposed to hold snap election for which he
Alvarez, Herrera and Defensor spearheaded
wouldn’t be candidate. (did not diffuse growing
move to impeach petitioner
crisis.
4.) Archbishop Cardinal Sin’s pastoral statement
17.) Petitioner announced that he was ordering his
asking petitioner to step down.
lawyers to agree opening controversial
5.) Former President Aquino demanded petitioner
envelope.
to take supreme self-sacrifice of resignation.
18.) Jan 20, a day of surrender. (Negotiations for
Later it was joined by former president Ramos.
peaceful and orderly transfer of powers.
Arroyo resigned as Secretary of DSWD and
19.) Chief Justice Davide administered oath of
later asked for petitioner’s resignation.
Arroyo at high noon at Edsa Shrine.
6.) Economic advisers, cabinet members
20.) Petitioner’s family hurriedly left Malacanang
resigned.
Palace.

STATEMENT :
 Acknowledged oath of Arroyo.
 Strong and serious doubts about legality
and constitutionality of proclamation.
 Leave seat of Presidency for sake of peace
and the beginning of healing process of
nation.
 Cal on supporters and followers to join him
in promotion of constructive national spririt
of reconciliation and solidarity.
SIGNED THE FOLLOWING:
By virtue of Sec 11, Art 7
 hearby transmitting this declaration that
I am unable tto exercise powers and
duties of my office.
 Vice President shall be the acting
President
 Jan 22, after taking her oath, respondent
Arroyo immediately discharged powers and
duties as President
 Appointed Cabinet, as well as
Ambassadors and Special Envoys.
 Recognized by Foreign Government
 H.R and Senate issued resolutions
expressing support to her administration.
 Nominated Sen. Gungona as VP.
 Senator Guingona took his oath.
 Senate passed resolution declaring
impeachment court as functus officio and
has been terminated.
 After petitioner’s fall from the pedestal of
power, petitioner’s legal problems
appeared in clusters. Several cases
previously filed agsints him were set in
motion.
 Special panel of inestigators was forthwith
created by respondent Ombudsman to
investigate chares against petitioner.
 Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition to
enjoin Ombudsman from conducting further
proceedings or in any other criminal
complaint filed n his office.
 Filed for Quo warranto praying that
judgment confirming petitioner to be lawful
and incumbent President of RP temporarily
unable to discharge duties of his office and
declaring respondent to have taken oath as
and to be holding office in actin capacity
pursuant to provisions of constitution.
ISSUES:
I. Whether petitioner Estrada is a
president on leave while Arroyo is
an acting president.
II. Whether conviction of impeachment
proceeding is a condition precedent
for criminal prosecution of petitioner
Estrada. In the negative, and on the
assumption that petitioner is still the
President, whether he is immune
from criminal prosecution
HELD:
I
Estrada:
o Denies resignation or that he suffers
from permanent disability.
 o Office of the President was not vacant
wen respondent Arroyo took her oath.
ART 7, SEC 8 (1987 CONSTI)
In case of D,PD,RFO, R. Vice president shall
become President to serve unexpired term.
IN case of death, permanent disability or
removal from office of both P and VP,
President of Senate, Speaker of the House
of Rep shall act as president until next
president or vice president shall have been
qualified.
 THE ISSUE THEN IS WHETHER
PETITIONER RESIGNED AS RESIDENT
OR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
RESIGNED AS OF JAN 20,2001 WHEN
RESPONDNT TOOK HER OATH.
 There must be intent to resign and intent
must be coupled by acts of relinquishment.
 Validity of resignation is not
governed by any formal
requirement as to form. It can e
oral/written. As long as resignation
is clear, it must be given legal
effect.
 Estrada did not write any formal letter of
resignation.
 SC USED: TOTALITY TEST
 Determined from acts and
omissions, before, during and after
Jan 20,2001.
 Stated the succession of events
 Used Angara Diary which revealed
that on Jan 19, petitioner’s loyal
advisor were worried about swelling
crowd in Edsa.
 Petitioner pulled Sen. Angara to
small office and said “Ed, seryoso
na ito)
 Decided to call for snap elections in
which he wouldn’t be a candidate.
 Expressed no objection to
suggestion of a graceful and
dignified exit but said he would
never leave country.
 Resignation was implied.
 Negotiations 3 points
1.) Transition period of 5 days
after resignation
2.) Guarantee of safety of
petitioner and his family
3.) Agreement to open 2nd
envelope to vindicate name
 Second round of negotiation :
cements reading that petitioner rhas
resigned
 According to Secretary Angara,
draft agreement which was
premised on the resignation of
petitioner was further refined. It was
then signed by their side and h was
ready to fax it.
 HOWEVER, SIGNING BY
RESPONDENT ARROYO WAS
ABORTED BY HER OATH TAKNG
 In sum, we hold that resignation of
petitioner cannot be doubted. It was
confirmed by his leaving in malacanang.

 It is however urged that petitioner did not
resign but only took temporary leave of
absence due to his inability to govern.
o Petitioner’s resignation from presidency
cannot be subject of changing caprice nor
of a whimsical will especially if resignation
is the result of his repudiation by the
people.
 Petitioner claims that as a matter of law, he
could not resign.
 Sec 12 RA 3019 otherwise known as Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, prohibits
his resignation
 :No public officer shall be allowed to resign
or retire pending an investigation for any
offense under such act or under provisions
of RPC on bribery
o Intent of law ought to be obvious. It is to
prevent the act of resignation o retirement
from being used by public official as a
protective shield to stop investigation of
pending criminal or administrative case
against him and to prevent his prosecution
under AntiGraft Law or prosecution for
Bribery under RPC.
o Sec 12 of RA No 3019 cannot be invoked
by petitioner for it contemplates cases
whose investigation or persecution do not
suffer from any insuperable legal obstacle
like immunity from suit of sitting president
 Petitioner contends that impeachment
proceeding is an administrative
investigation under Sec 12 RA 3019 that
bars him from resigning.
o It cannot be considered pendin at
time petitioner resigned because
the process already broke down
when majority of senator-judges
voted against opening of 2nd
envelope, when public or private
prosecutors broke out
o Proceedings were postponed
indefinitely.
o There was in effect no
impeachment case pending against
petitioner when he resigned.
II.
 CONTENTIONL He is merely temporarily
unable to perform the powers and duties of
presidency and hence is a President on
leave.
 Petitioner postulates that respondent
Arroyo as VP has no power to adjudge the
inability of petitioner to discharge powers
and duties of presidency
 Congress has ultimate authority under
constitution to determine whether the
Presidnet is incapable of performin his
functions in a manner provided in Sec 11 of
Art VII
 (Insert provision here)
 Considering set of facts:
o Clear that regcognition is the premise that
the inability of Estrada is no longer
temporary. Congress has clearly rejected
petitioner’s claim of inability.
o In fine, even if the petitioner can prove that o Impeachment is now functus officio, It
he did not resign, still, he cannot is untenable for petitioner to demand
successfully claim that he is a president on that he be first ipeached and convicted
leave on the ground that he is merely nable before he can be prosecuted.
to govern temporarily. o He lost his presidency, petitioner
o Claim laid to rest by Congress and the Estrada cannot demand as a condition
decision that respondent Arroyo is the de sine qua non to his crimininal
jure President made by a co-equal branch prosecution before ombudsman that he
of government cannot be reviewed by be convicted in impeachment
court. proceedings.
III. o Only tenure: immunity from suit.
 Petitioner Estrada claims that
1.) Cases filed against him before the
respondent Ombudsman should be ESTRADA v. DESIERTO (APRIL 2001)
prohibited because he has not been
Petitioner raises the following grounds
convicted in impeachment proceedings
o TEMPORARY INABILITY
against him
 Petiioneer argues that court misinterpreted
2.) He enjoys immunity from all kinds of
meaning of Sec 11, Art 7 of Constitution in
suit whether civil or criminal
that Congress can only decide issue of
o Principle of Non-liability does no mean
inability were there is variance in opinion
that chief executive cannot be
between majority of Cabinent and
personally sued in relation to acts as an
President
officer. He may be liable for acts
 It is also urged that President’s judgment
outside his power. He is only protected
that he is unable to govern temporarily
from question of authority and wrong
which is thereafter communicated to
decisions.
Speaker of the House and the President of
o We reject his argument that he cannot
Senate is a political question which this
be prosecuted fro the reason that he
court cannot review.
must first be convicted in impeachment
o We cannot sustain the petitioner. Lest
proceedings The impeachment trial of
petitioner forgets he himself made
Estrada was aborted by walkout of
submission that Congress has the ultimate
prosecutors and by events that led to
authority under the Constitution to
the loss of his presidency
determine whether president is incapable
 of performing his functions in the manner
provided in Sec 11, Art 7.
o If petitioner now feels aggrieved by manner
Congress exercised its power, its
incumbent upon him to seek redress from
Congress itself.
o Power is conceded by petitioner to be with
Congress and its alleged errorneous
exercise cannot be corrected by this Court.
 Petitioner attempts to extricate himself from  It is also urged that President’s judgment
submission that Congress has ultimate
authority to determine his inability o govern
and whose determination is a political
question by now arguing that whether one
is a de jure or de facto Pres is a judicial
question.
 On issue of resignation under Sec 8, Art 7,
we held that issue is legal and ruled that
petitioner has resigned from office before
Arroyo took her oath.
 Inability to govern under Sec 11, Art 7 :
Congress has ultimate authority to
determine the question as pined by
petitioner himself and that the
determination of congress is a political
judgment which this court cannot review.
 Petitioner cannot blur these specific rulings
by the generalization that whether one is a
de jure or de facto president is a judicial
question
III. TEMPORARY INABILITY:
 Petitioner argues that Court misinterpreted
meaning of Section 11 Art VII of
Constitution tha Congress can only decide
issue of inability when there is variance of
optio between majority of Cabinet and
President.
 The situation presents itself when majority
of cabinet determines that President is
unable to govern; later the President
informs Congress that his inability has
ceased but is contradicted by a majoriy of
members of Cabinet.
that he is unable to govern temporarily
which is thereafter communicated to
Speaker of the House and Pres of Senate
is a political question which court cannot
review.
 Lest petitioner forgets he himself made
submission that Congress has the ultimate
authority under the Constitution to
determine whether president is incapable
of performing his functions in the manner
provided in Sec 11, Art 7.
 He asserts that these acts of Congress
should not be accorded any legal
significance because (1) post facto (2)
declaration of presidential incapacity
cannot be implied.
o We disagree. There is nothing I Sec
11 Art 7 which states that
declaration by congress of inability
must always be a priori or before
VP assumes presidency.
o This priori recognition by President
of Senate and Speaker of the
House of Representatives of
respondent Arroyo as the
 constitutional successor to
presidency was followed by post
facto by various resolutions of
Senate and House in effect
conforming this recognition.
o Resolution No. 83 declaring the
impeachment court functus officio.
o Acts of Congress a priori and post
facto cannot be dismissed as
merely implied recognition of
respondent Arroyo.
o The constitution clearly sets out the
structure on how vacancies and
election contest in office of Presiden
shall be decided.
o Thus in Sec 7, Art 7 covers
instances when
a.) President elect fails to qualify
b.) Presdent shall not have been
chosen
c.) If at beginning of term of
President, President elect shall
have died or become
permanently disabled.
o Sec 8, Art 7 covers situation of
- Death, permanent disability,
removal from office or resignation of
president
o Sec 11, Art 7 covers cases were the
President transmits to the President of
Senate and Speaker of the House his
written declaration that he is unable to
dischare powers.
IV. IMPEACHMENT AND ABSOLUTE
IMMUNITY
 Petitioner reiterates argument that he must
first be convicted in impeachment
proceeding before he could be criminally
prosecuted.
 Contends that walkout from impeachment
proceedings should be considered as
failure to prosecute on part of public and
private prosecutors and the termination of
case by senate is equivalent to aquitta.
o Petitioner relinquished presidency and
respondent Arroyo took her oath as
President of Republic.
o Senate passed Resolution 83 declaring
impeachment court : functus officio
o Petitioner cannot invoke double
jeopardy.
o REQUISITES OF DOUBLE
JEOPARDY:
1. Valid complaint
2. Before competent court
3. After arraignment
4. Valid plea was entered
5. Defendant was acquitted or
convicted or case was dismissed or
otherwise terminated without
express consent of accused.
o Petitioner failed to satisfy 5th requisite for
he was not accqitted no was
impeachment proceeding dismissed
without his express consent
o He was not convicted in impeachment
court.
 o By resigning from presidency, petitioner
more than consented to termination of
impeachment case against him, for he
brought about the termination in
impeachment proceedings.
o Petitioner stubbornly clings to contention
that he is entitled to absolute immunity
from suit
o His arguments are merely recycled and
we need not prolong longevity of debate. 
o 1987 Consti: public office is public trust.
o Petitioner as a non-sitting president
cannot claim executive immunity for his
alleged criminal acts committed while a
sitting president.
o Petitioner fails to distinguish between
term and tenure.
Term Time during hich officer may
claim to hold office as of right
and fixes interval after which
several incumbents may
succeed one another
Tenure Term during which
incumbent actually holds
office
RAFAEL V. EMBROIDERY AND APPEAREL
CONTROL AND INSEPCTION BOARD
(DESIGNATION AND EX-OFFICIO
CAPACITY)
Facts:
 Petitioner was engaged in manufacture of
embroidery and apparel products for
purpose of exportation using important raw
materials authorized by collector of
customs
 1961: RA 3137 was enacted creating an
“embroidery and apparel control and
inspection board
Sec 2 thereof provides that board shall be
composed of
(1) Rep from Bureau of Customs to act as
chairman to be designated by
Secretary of Finance
(2) Representative from Central Bank
designated by Governor
(3) Representative from Department of
Commerce and Industry to be
designated by Secretary of Commerce
and Industry
(4) Representative from National Economic
Council to be designated by its
chairman
(5) Representative from privat sector
coming form Association of Embroidery
and Apparel Exporters of PH
 Petitioner was asked to remit
aforementioned application amount of P
200.00.
 Unwilling to comply, petitioner filed an
action for prohibition with preliminary
injuction in court a quo.
 CLAIM:
 - RA 3137 : acts be declared void  Congress may increase power and
because they are done without duties of existing offices without
jurisdiction from prohibiting same or thereby rendering it necessary that
similar acts the incumbent should be again
- While congress may create an nominated and appointed.
office, it cannot specify who shall be  Nothing in the Act nor in the records
appointed therein of case suggest that designated
- Members of the Board can only eb representatives to board will lose or
appointed by President forfeit their original appointments in
- Since act prescribes that chairman their parent offices
and members of Board should  No attempt to deprive president of
come from specified offices, it is power to make appointments and
equivalent to declaration by therefore on this point, we rule that
congress as to who should be law is not unconstitutional.
appointed, thereby infringing
constitutional power of president to
make appointments.
HELD: ARGUMENT UNTENABLE
 For chairman and members of board
to qualify they need nonly be
designated by respective department
heads.
 With the exception of representative
from private sector, they seat ex-
officio.
 In order to be designated, they must
already be holding positions in the
offices mentoned in law.
 No new appointments are necessary.
 Representatives so designated
merely perform duties in Board in
addition to those they already perform
under their original appointments.