Estrada vs.

Arroyo
GR No. 146738, March 2, 2001
FACTS:
While impeachment proceedings were on-going against petitioner Erap and as public calls for his
resignation intensify, with the addition of the AFP and PNP withdrawing their support of him as
President, 2 rounds of negotiations for the peaceful and orderly transfer of power were
conducted. However, news broke out that Chief Justice Davide would already administer the
oath to respondent Arroyo as President, which was before petitioner could declare his stepping
down as President.
Thereafter, petitioner and his family hurriedly left Malacañang Palace and he issued a letter
acknowledging Arroyo’s oath as president, but at the same time, questioning the legality and
constitutionality of the proclamation of her as President.
Public and official acknowledgments of Arroyo’s presidency were received.
Erap filed a petition seeking to enjoin the Ombudsman from conducting any further proceedings
regarding the cases filed against him, as well as with a prayer for judgment that Arroyo is only in
an acting capacity and that he is still the lawful and incumbent President temporarily unable to
discharge his official duties.

ISSUES:
Whether Erap is a President on leave while respondent Arroyo is an Acting President.

Whether conviction in the impeachment proceedings is a condition precedent for the criminal
prosecution of petitioner Estrada. In the negative and on the assumption that petitioner is still
President, whether he is immune from criminal prosecution.

RULING:

The petition challenging respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as the de jure 14 th President is

dismissed.

The principal issues for resolution require the proper interpretation of certain provisions in the
1987 Constitution, notably section 1 of Article II, and section 8 of Article VII, and the allocation
of governmental powers under section 11 of Article VII. The issues likewise call for a ruling on
the scope of presidential immunity from suit.

The Court held that the President is deemed to have resigned since he issued a letter implying his
resignation and by virtue of the totality of his acts and the intention thereof.

Moreover, both houses of Congress have recognized respondent Arroyo as the President.
Implicitly clear in that recognition is the premise that the inability of petitioner Estrada is no
longer temporary. Congress has clearly rejected petitioner's claim of inability. The Court has no
jurisdiction to review the claim of temporary inability of petitioner Estrada and thereafter revise
the decision of both Houses of Congress recognizing respondent Arroyo as president of the
Philippines, as this is a political question.

Contrary to petitioner’s claims, conviction in the impeachment trial is not required for petitioner
to be sued by complaints filed with the Ombudsman. Resignation from the presidential post
during the pendency of an impeachment proceeding, and thereby rendering the impeachment
trial moot and academic, cannot be used as an excuse for the resigned president to be immune
from cases filed against him with the Ombudsman.

Immunity from suit, on the other hand, only means that he may not be mulcted for the
consequences of an act executed in the performance of his official duties and within his
jurisdiction or authority. It does not cover illegal acts done beyond this scope.

There is not enough evidence to warrant this Court to enjoin the preliminary investigation of the
petitioner by the respondent Ombudsman. Petitioner needs to show proof that the DOJ Panel or
the Ombudsman’s judgment has been tainted or influenced by the press before the court could
seriously consider the argument of prejudicial publicity.