ESTRADA V.

DESIERTO

DOCTRINE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – In a resignation, there must be an intent to resign, and that intent
must be coupled by acts of relinquishment. The validity of a resignation is not government by
any formal requirements as to form since it can be oral or written, expressed or implied. So long
as the resignation is clear, the same act must be given legal effect.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Presidential immunity was granted only during the term of the
President in order to prevent delay in actions on important matters by the Chief Executive due to
litigations that may be lodged against him. The said immunity does not apply beyond the term of
the President.

FACTS

After the people’s clamor in EDSA for him to resign from his position, Petitioner Joseph Estrada
issued a statement that he will be leaving the Malacañang Palace in order to have a peaceful
transition of power and start the healing of the nation warped by confusion due to his
impeachment trial. Nevertheless, he sent a letter to the Senate President and the Speaker of the
House stating that he is temporarily unable to perform the duties of the office of the President
and let then Vice-President Respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo assume the position of Acting
President.

Later, the Office of the Ombudsman filed plunder and perjury charges against the Petitioner. A
special panel of prosecutors were assigned to investigate the charges against the Petitioner. Thus,
the Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition before the Supreme Court. He alleged that he cannot
be criminally charged by the Ombudsman on the ground of immunity from suit. He claimed that
he is still the President of the Philippines, and that Respondent is merely holding the position in
an acting capacity. Further, he claimed that he cannot be considered as to have resigned because
he is prohibited by law from resigning since he was under an investigation, i.e. an impeachment
trial.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the Petitioner resigned as President.

2. Whether or not the Petitioner was temporarily incapable of exercising the Presidency.
3. Whether or not the Petitioner is immune from suit, and if so, up to what extent.
 RULING

1. YES. The Supreme Court ruled that in a resignation, there must be an intent to resign, and that
intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment. The validity of a resignation is not government
by any formal requirements as to form since it can be oral or written, expressed or implied. So
long as the resignation is clear, the same act must be given legal effect.

In the present case, it was established the Petitioner resigned from his position as President of the
Philippines. According to the Angara Diary, which serialized the final days of the Petitioner in
Malacañang Palace, the Petitioner made pronouncements which was interpreted as intention of
giving up the position such as when he proposed a snap election where he would not be a
candidate; non-defiance to the request of a peaceful and orderly transfer of power; prior
agreement to the transfer of power with conditions as to the state of the Petitioner and his family;
and the issuance of a statement wherein the Petitioner leaves the palace, the seat of the
Presidency, for the sake and peace and order. Hence, the resignation of the Petitioner was
implied by his actions to leave the Presidency.

2. NO. The Court ruled that it is not within its jurisdiction to review whether the Petitioner was
temporarily incapable of exercising the Presidency for being political in nature, and addressed
solely to Congress, as provided in the Constitution. Even if the Petitioner can prove that he did
not resign, the Petitioner cannot successfully claim that he was merely on leave because
Congress recognized the Respondent as the de jure president, which cannot be reviewed by the
Court without violating the principle of separation of powers.

In the present case, both Houses of Congress recognized the Respondent as the President when
they issued Resolutions to the said effect. Further, both Houses issued a Resolution approving
the selection and appoint of Sen. Teofisto Guingona as Vice-President. Further, finally, both
Houses started sending bills to be signed into law by the Respondent. Hence, the Petitioner was
not temporarily incapable to exercise the Presidency because he resigned as President, and
Houses of Congress already recognized the legitimacy of the Respondent.

3. NO. The Court held that presidential immunity was granted only during the term of the
President in order to prevent delay in actions on important matters by the Chief Executive due to
litigations that may be lodged against him. The said immunity does not apply beyond the term of
the President.

In the present case, the Petitioner cannot claim that he cannot be sued before the Ombudsman
because he was immune from suit. In fact, the Petitioner cannot cite any decision that the
President has post-tenure immunity from liability. Further, the Petitioner cannot claim that he is
immune from suit because he was not convicted by the Impeachment Court. To allow such
situation will put a perpetual bar against his prosecution, which were criminal in nature. Hence,
the Petitioner is not immune from suit.
 DISPOSITIVE PORTION

Petitions are DISMISSED.