G.R. No. 146738 Estrada vs. Arroyo
G.R. No 146710-15 Estrada vs. Desierto
March 2, 2001
FACTS:
Estrada was inaugurated as president of the Republic of the Philippines on June 30, 1998 with Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as his Vice President.
In October 2000, Ilocos Sur governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, a close friend of the President, alleged that he had personally given Estrada money as payoff from jueteng hidden in a bank account known as “Jose Velarde” – a grassroots-based numbers game. Singson’s allegation also caused controversy across the nation, which culminated in the House of Representatives’ filing of an impeachment case against Estrada on November 13, 2000. House Speaker Manny Villar fast-tracked the impeachment complaint. The impeachment suit was brought to the Senate and an impeachment court was formed, with Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. as presiding officer. Estrada, pleaded “not guilty”.
The exposé immediately ignited reactions of rage. On January 18, a crowd continued to grow at EDSA, bolstered by students from private schools and left-wing organizations. Activists from the group Bayan and Akbayan as well as lawyers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and other bar associations joined in the thousands of protesters.
On January 19, The Philippine National Police and the Armed Forces of the Philippines also withdrew their support for Estrada and joined the crowd at EDSA Shrine.
At 2:00pm, Estrada appeared on television for the first time since the beginning of the protests and maintains that he will not resign. He said that he wanted the impeachment trial to continue, stressing that only a guilty verdict will remove him from office.
At 6:15pm, Estrada again appeared on television, calling 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.
OnJanuary 20, the Supreme Court declared that the seat of presidency was vacant, saying that Estrada “constructively resigned his post”. Noon of the same day, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took her oath of office in the presence of the crowd at EDSA, becoming the 14th president of the Philippines.
At 2:00 pm, Estrada released a letter saying he had “strong and serious doubts about the legality and constitutionality of her proclamation as president”, but saying he would give up his office to avoid being an obstacle to healing the nation. Estrada and his family later left Malacañang Palace.
A heap of cases then succeeded Estrada’s leaving the palace, which he countered by filing a peition for prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. 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 petitioner to be the lawful and incumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge the duties of his office, and declaring respondent to have taken her oath as and to be holding the Office of the President, only in an acting capacity pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution.”
ISSUE:
1.) Whether or not the case at bar a political or justiciable issue. If justiciable, whether or not petitioner Estrada was a president-on-leave or did he truly resign.
2.) Whether or not petitioner may invokeimmunity from suits.
HELD:
The Court defines a political issue as “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.”
The Court made a distinction between the Aquino presidency and the Arroyo presidency. The Court said that while the Aquino government was a government spawned by the direct demand of the people in defiance to the 1973 Constitution, overthrowing the old government entirely, the Arroyo government on the other hand was a government exercising under the 1987 constitution, wherein only the office of the president was affected. In the former, it The question of whether the previous president (president Estrada) truly resigned subjects it to judicial review. The Court held that the issue is legal and not political.
For the president to be deemed as having resigned, there must be an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment. It is important to follow the succession of events that struck petitioner prior his leaving the palace. Furthermore, the quoted statements extracted from the Angara diaries, detailed Estrada’s implied resignation On top of all these, the press release he issued regarding is acknowledgement of the oath-taking of Arroyo as president despite his questioning of its legality and his emphasis on leaving the presidential seat for the sake of peace. The Court held that petitioner Estrada had resigned by the use of the totality test: prior, contemporaneous and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on the issue.
As to the issue of the peitioner’s contention that he is immuned from suits, the Court held that petitioner is no longer entitled to absolute immunity from suit. The Court added that, given the intent of the 1987 Constitution to breathe life to the policy that a public office is a public trust, the petitioner, as a non-sitting President, cannot claim executive immunity for his alleged criminal acts committed while a sitting President. From the deliberations, the intent of the framers is clear that the immunity of the president from suit is concurrent only with his tenure(the term during which the incumbent actually holds office) and not his term (time during which the officer may claim to hold the office as of right, and fixes the interval after which the several incumbents shall succeed one another).
In the case of Estrada vs. Arroyo; Estrada vs. Desierto, the Supreme Court made a crucial distinction between political questions and justiciable questions, providing a clear and compelling justification for its ruling.
ReplyDeleteA political question, as defined by the Court, is one that falls within the purview of the people or has been delegated to the executive or legislative branches with full discretionary authority. It is an issue that lies outside the scope of judicial review and is better left to the other branches of government to decide.
On the other hand, a justiciable question is one that can be properly addressed and resolved by the courts. It involves the interpretation and application of the law, including questions of constitutionality, legality, and individual rights.
In this case, the Court underscored the significance of the circumstances surrounding the Aquino government and the Arroyo government. While the Aquino government emerged from a direct demand of the people and a defiance of the 1973 Constitution, the Arroyo government, under the 1987 Constitution, was established with only the office of the president affected. As a result, the question of President Estrada's true resignation and the legitimacy of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's assumption of the presidency warranted judicial review.
The Court's ruling showcases its role as the interpreter of the Constitution and its commitment to upholding the rule of law. By deeming the issue justiciable, the Court ensured that it would delve into legal analysis and apply constitutional principles to determine the case's outcome. This decision reaffirms the judiciary's authority and its responsibility to provide a fair and impartial resolution to constitutional disputes.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's ruling in this case demonstrates its astute understanding of the boundary between political questions and justiciable questions, upholding the principle that legal issues concerning the Constitution are within its purview. The Court's ability to explain the reasoning behind its decision in a cogent and persuasive manner underscores the importance of an independent and intellectually robust judiciary in ensuring the proper functioning of a democratic society.