ESTRADA vs. DESIERTO, Et. Al.
because he has not been convicted
G.R. Nos. 146710-15. March 2,
2001. En Banc.
APPLICABILITY AND
EFFECTIVITY OF THE RPC;
GENERALITY
DOCTRINE: The President of the
Philippines is entitled to immunity
from suit subject to the following
conditions: (1) the immunity has
been asserted; (2) during the
period of his incumbency and
tenure; and (3) the act constituting
the crime is committed in the
performance of his duties.
Presidential immunity will assure
the exercise of presidential duties
and functions free from any
hindrance or distraction,
considering that the Chief
Executive is a job that demands
undivided attention.
FACTS: Petitioner Joseph Estrada
filed a petition for prohibition with
a prayer for a writ of preliminary
injunction. It sought to enjoin the
respondent Ombudsman Aniano
Desierto from "conducting any
further proceedings or in any other
criminal complaint that may be
filed in his office, until after the
term of petitioner as President is
over and only if legally warranted.
Petitioner Estrada makes two
submissions: first, the cases filed
against him before the respondent
Ombudsman should be prohibited
in the impeachment proceedings
against him; and second , he enjoys
immunity from all kinds of suit,
whether criminal or civil.
ISSUE/S: Is President Estrada
immune from criminal
prosecution?
RULING: YES. The "incumbent
Presidents are immune from suit or
from being brought to court
during the period of their
incumbency and tenure" but not
beyond.1
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 alleged 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
1
In Re: Saturnino Bermudez, 145 SCRA
160 (1986).
but stands in the same footing as
any other trespasser. 2

There are more reasons not to be

sympathetic to appeals to stretch
the scope of executive immunity in
our jurisdiction. One of the great
themes of the 1987 Constitution is
that a public office is a public
trust.3 It declared as a state policy
that "(t)he State shall maintain
honesty and integrity in the public
service and take positive and
effective measures against graft
and corruption." XXXXX These
constitutional policies will be
devalued if we sustain petitioner's
claim that a non-sitting president
enjoys immunity from suit for
criminal acts committed during his
incumbency.

DISPOSITION: IN VIEW WHEREOF,

the petitions of Joseph Ejercito
Estrada challenging the
respondent Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo as the de jure 14th
President of the Republic are
DISMISSED.

2
Wallace v. Board of Education, 280 Ala.
635, 197 So 2d 428 (1967).
3
See section 1, Art. XI of the 1987
Constitution.