G.R. No.

146710-15 March 2, 2001 First, we take a view of the panorama of events that
precipitated the crisis in the office of the President.
JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, petitioner,
vs. In the May 11, 1998 elections, petitioner Joseph Ejercito
ANIANO DESIERTO, in his capacity as Ombudsman, RAMON Estrada was elected President while respondent Gloria
GONZALES, VOLUNTEERS AGAINST CRIME AND Macapagal-Arroyo was elected Vice-President. Some ten (10)
CORRUPTION, GRAFT FREE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION, million Filipinos voted for the petitioner believing he would
INC., LEONARD DE VERA, DENNIS FUNA, ROMEO rescue them from life's adversity. Both petitioner and the
CAPULONG and ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR., respondent were to serve a six-year term commencing on
respondent. June 30, 1998.

---------------------------------------- From the beginning of his term, however, petitioner was

plagued by a plethora of problems that slowly but surely
G.R. No. 146738 March 2, 2001 eroded his popularity. His sharp descent from power started on
October 4, 2000. Ilocos Sur Governor, Luis "Chavit" Singson, a
JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, petitioner, longtime friend of the petitioner, went on air and accused the
vs. petitioner, his family and friends of receiving millions of pesos
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, respondent. from jueteng lords.1

PUNO, J.: The exposẻ immediately ignited reactions of rage. The next
day, October 5, 2000, Senator Teofisto Guingona, Jr., then the
On the line in the cases at bar is the office of the President. Senate Minority Leader, took the floor and delivered a fiery
Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada alleges that he is the privilege speech entitled "I Accuse." He accused the petitioner
President on leave while respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of receiving some P220 million in jueteng money from
claims she is the President. The warring personalities are Governor Singson from November 1998 to August 2000. He
important enough but more transcendental are the also charged that the petitioner took from Governor Singson
constitutional issues embedded on the parties' dispute. While P70 million on excise tax on cigarettes intended for Ilocos Sur.
the significant issues are many, the jugular issue involves the The privilege speech was referred by then Senate President
relationship between the ruler and the ruled in a democracy, Franklin Drilon, to the Blue Ribbon Committee (then headed
Philippine style. by Senator Aquilino Pimentel) and the Committee on Justice
(then headed by Senator Renato Cayetano) for joint
investigation.2
 representatives defected from the ruling coalition, Lapian ng
The House of Representatives did no less. The House Masang Pilipino.10
Committee on Public Order and Security, then headed by
Representative Roilo Golez, decided to investigate the exposẻ The month of November ended with a big bang. In a
of Governor Singson. On the other hand, Representatives tumultuous session on November 13, House Speaker Villar
Heherson Alvarez, Ernesto Herrera and Michael Defensor transmitted the Articles of Impeachment11 signed by 115
spearheaded the move to impeach the petitioner. representatives, or more than 1/3 of all the members of the
House of Representatives to the Senate. This caused political
Calls for the resignation of the petitioner filled the air. On convulsions in both houses of Congress. Senator Drilon was
October 11, Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin issued a pastoral replaced by Senator Pimentel as Senate President. Speaker
statement in behalf of the Presbyteral Council of the Villar was unseated by Representative Fuentebella.12 On
Archdiocese of Manila, asking petitioner to step down from the November 20, the Senate formally opened the impeachment
presidency as he had lost the moral authority to govern.3 Two trial of the petitioner. Twenty-one (21) senators took their oath
days later or on October 13, the Catholic Bishops Conference as judges with Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide,
of the Philippines joined the cry for the resignation of the Jr., presiding.13
petitioner.4 Four days later, or on October 17, former President
Corazon C. Aquino also demanded that the petitioner take the The political temperature rose despite the cold December. On
"supreme self-sacrifice" of resignation.5 Former President December 7, the impeachment trial started.14 The battle
Fidel Ramos also joined the chorus. Early on, or on October royale was fought by some of the marquee names in the legal
12, respondent Arroyo resigned as Secretary of the profession. Standing as prosecutors were then House Minority
Department of Social Welfare and Services6 and later asked Floor Leader Feliciano Belmonte and Representatives Joker
for petitioner's resignation.7 However, petitioner strenuously Arroyo, Wigberto Tañada, Sergio Apostol, Raul Gonzales,
held on to his office and refused to resign. Oscar Moreno, Salacnib Baterina, Roan Libarios, Oscar
Rodriguez, Clavel Martinez and Antonio Nachura. They were
The heat was on. On November 1, four (4) senior economic assisted by a battery of private prosecutors led by now
advisers, members of the Council of Senior Economic Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez and now Solicitor
Advisers, resigned. They were Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala, General Simeon Marcelo. Serving as defense counsel were
former Prime Minister Cesar Virata, former Senator Vicente former Chief Justice Andres Narvasa, former Solicitor General
Paterno and Washington Sycip.8 On November 2, Secretary and Secretary of Justice Estelito P. Mendoza, former City
Mar Roxas II also resigned from the Department of Trade and Fiscal of Manila Jose Flaminiano, former Deputy Speaker of
Industry.9 On November 3, Senate President Franklin Drilon, the House Raul Daza, Atty. Siegfried Fortun and his brother,
and House Speaker Manuel Villar, together with some 47 Atty. Raymund Fortun. The day to day trial was covered by live
TV and during its course enjoyed the highest viewing rating. Its They also filed their Manifestation of Withdrawal of
high and low points were the constant conversational piece of Appearance with the impeachment tribunal.19 Senator Raul
the chattering classes. The dramatic point of the December Roco quickly moved for the indefinite postponement of the
hearings was the testimony of Clarissa Ocampo, senior vice impeachment proceedings until the House of Representatives
president of Equitable-PCI Bank. She testified that she was shall have resolved the issue of resignation of the public
one foot away from petitioner Estrada when he affixed the prosecutors. Chief Justice Davide granted the motion.20
signature "Jose Velarde" on documents involving a P500
million investment agreement with their bank on February 4, January 18 saw the high velocity intensification of the call for
2000.15 petitioner's resignation. A 10-kilometer line of people holding
lighted candles formed a human chain from the Ninoy Aquino
After the testimony of Ocampo, the impeachment trial was Monument on Ayala Avenue in Makati City to the EDSA Shrine
adjourned in the spirit of Christmas. When it resumed on to symbolize the people's solidarity in demanding petitioner's
January 2, 2001, more bombshells were exploded by the resignation. Students and teachers walked out of their classes
prosecution. On January 11, Atty. Edgardo Espiritu who served in Metro Manila to show their concordance. Speakers in the
as petitioner's Secretary of Finance took the witness stand. He continuing rallies at the EDSA Shrine, all masters of the
alleged that the petitioner jointly owned BW Resources physics of persuasion, attracted more and more people.21
Corporation with Mr. Dante Tan who was facing charges of
insider trading.16 Then came the fateful day of January 16, On January 19, the fall from power of the petitioner appeared
when by a vote of 11-1017 the senator-judges ruled against inevitable. At 1:20 p.m., the petitioner informed Executive
the opening of the second envelope which allegedly contained Secretary Edgardo Angara that General Angelo Reyes, Chief
evidence showing that petitioner held P3.3 billion in a secret of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, had defected.
bank account under the name "Jose Velarde." The public and At 2:30 p.m., petitioner agreed to the holding of a snap
private prosecutors walked out in protest of the ruling. In election for President where he would not be a candidate. It
disgust, Senator Pimentel resigned as Senate President.18 did not diffuse the growing crisis. At 3:00 p.m., Secretary of
The ruling made at 10:00 p.m. was met by a spontaneous National Defense Orlando Mercado and General Reyes,
outburst of anger that hit the streets of the metropolis. By together with the chiefs of all the armed services went to the
midnight, thousands had assembled at the EDSA Shrine and EDSA Shrine.22 In the presence of former Presidents Aquino
speeches full of sulphur were delivered against the petitioner and Ramos and hundreds of thousands of cheering
and the eleven (11) senators. demonstrators, General Reyes declared that "on behalf of Your
Armed Forces, the 130,000 strong members of the Armed
On January 17, the public prosecutors submitted a letter to Forces, we wish to announce that we are withdrawing our
Speaker Fuentebella tendering their collective resignation. support to this government."23 A little later, PNP Chief,
Director General Panfilo Lacson and the major service
commanders gave a similar stunning announcement.24 Some "20 January 2001
Cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries,
and bureau chiefs quickly resigned from their posts.25 Rallies STATEMENT FROM
for the resignation of the petitioner exploded in various parts of
the country. To stem the tide of rage, petitioner announced he PRESIDENT JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA
was ordering his lawyers to agree to the opening of the highly
controversial second envelope.26 There was no turning back At twelve o'clock noon today, Vice President Gloria
the tide. The tide had become a tsunami. Macapagal-Arroyo took her oath as President of the Republic
of the Philippines. While along with many other legal minds of
January 20 turned to be the day of surrender. At 12:20 a.m., our country, I have strong and serious doubts about the legality
the first round of negotiations for the peaceful and orderly and constitutionality of her proclamation as President, I do not
transfer of power started at Malacañang'' Mabini Hall, Office of wish to be a factor that will prevent the restoration of unity and
the Executive Secretary. Secretary Edgardo Angara, Senior order in our civil society.
Deputy Executive Secretary Ramon Bagatsing, Political
Adviser Angelito Banayo, Asst. Secretary Boying Remulla, and It is for this reason that I now leave Malacañang Palace, the
Atty. Macel Fernandez, head of the Presidential Management seat of the presidency of this country, for the sake of peace
Staff, negotiated for the petitioner. Respondent Arroyo was and in order to begin the healing process of our nation. I leave
represented by now Executive Secretary Renato de Villa, now the Palace of our people with gratitude for the opportunities
Secretary of Finance Alberto Romulo and now Secretary of given to me for service to our people. I will not shirk from any
Justice Hernando Perez.27 Outside the palace, there was a future challenges that may come ahead in the same service of
brief encounter at Mendiola between pro and anti-Estrada our country.
protesters which resulted in stone-throwing and caused minor
injuries. The negotiations consumed all morning until the news I call on all my supporters and followers to join me in to
broke out that Chief Justice Davide would administer the oath promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and
to respondent Arroyo at high noon at the EDSA Shrine. solidarity.

At about 12:00 noon, Chief Justice Davide administered the May the Almighty bless our country and beloved people.
oath to respondent Arroyo as President of the Philippines.28
At 2:30 p.m., petitioner and his family hurriedly left MABUHAY!
Malacañang Palace.29 He issued the following press
statement:30 (Sgd.) JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA"
 court Resolve unanimously to confirm the authority given by
It also appears that on the same day, January 20, 2001, he the twelve (12) members of the Court then present to the Chief
signed the following letter:31 Justice on January 20, 2001 to administer the oath of office of
Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the
"Sir: Philippines, at noon of January 20, 2001.1âwphi1.nêt

By virtue of the provisions of Section 11, Article VII of the This resolution is without prejudice to the disposition of any
Constitution, I am hereby transmitting this declaration that I am justiciable case that may be filed by a proper party."
unable to exercise the powers and duties of my office. By
operation of law and the Constitution, the Vice-President shall Respondent Arroyo appointed members of her Cabinet as well
be the Acting President. as ambassadors and special envoys.34 Recognition of
respondent Arroyo's government by foreign governments
(Sgd.) JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA" swiftly followed. On January 23, in a reception or vin d'
honneur at Malacañang, led by the Dean of the Diplomatic
A copy of the letter was sent to former Speaker Fuentebella at Corps, Papal Nuncio Antonio Franco, more than a hundred
8:30 a.m. on January 20.23 Another copy was transmitted to foreign diplomats recognized the government of respondent
Senate President Pimentel on the same day although it was Arroyo.35 US President George W. Bush gave the respondent
received only at 9:00 p.m.33 a telephone call from the White House conveying US
recognition of her government.36
On January 22, the Monday after taking her oath, respondent
Arroyo immediately discharged the powers the duties of the On January 24, Representative Feliciano Belmonte was
Presidency. On the same day, this Court issued the following elected new Speaker of the House of Representatives.37 The
Resolution in Administrative Matter No. 01-1-05-SC, to wit: House then passed Resolution No. 175 "expressing the full
support of the House of Representatives to the administration
"A.M. No. 01-1-05-SC — In re: Request of Vice President of Her Excellency, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to Take her Oath of Office as Philippines."38 It also approved Resolution No. 176
President of the Republic of the Philippines before the Chief "expressing the support of the House of Representatives to the
Justice — Acting on the urgent request of Vice President assumption into office by Vice President Gloria
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to be sworn in as President of the Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Republic of the
Republic of the Philippines, addressed to the Chief Justice and Philippines, extending its congratulations and expressing its
confirmed by a letter to the Court, dated January 20, 2001, support for her administration as a partner in the attainment of
which request was treated as an administrative matter, the the nation's goals under the Constitution."39
 2001, results showed that 61% of the Filipinos nationwide
On January 26, the respondent signed into law the Solid accepted President Arroyo as replacement of petitioner
Waste Management Act.40 A few days later, she also signed Estrada. The survey also revealed that President Arroyo is
into law the Political Advertising ban and Fair Election accepted by 60% in Metro Manila, by also 60% in the balance
Practices Act.41 of Luzon, by 71% in the Visayas, and 55% in Mindanao. Her
trust rating increased to 52%. Her presidency is accepted by
On February 6, respondent Arroyo nominated Senator Teofisto majorities in all social classes: 58% in the ABC or
Guingona, Jr., as her Vice President.42 The next day, middle-to-upper classes, 64% in the D or mass class, and 54%
February 7, the Senate adopted Resolution No. 82 confirming among the E's or very poor class.50
the nomination of Senator Guingona, Jr.43 Senators Miriam
Defensor-Santiago, Juan Ponce Enrile, and John Osmena After his fall from the pedestal of power, the petitioner's legal
voted "yes" with reservations, citing as reason therefor the problems appeared in clusters. Several cases previously filed
pending challenge on the legitimacy of respondent Arroyo's against him in the Office of the Ombudsman were set in
presidency before the Supreme Court. Senators Teresa motion. These are: (1) OMB Case No. 0-00-1629, filed by
Aquino-Oreta and Robert Barbers were absent.44 The House Ramon A. Gonzales on October 23, 2000 for bribery and graft
of Representatives also approved Senator Guingona's and corruption; (2) OMB Case No. 0-00-1754 filed by the
nomination in Resolution No. 178.45 Senator Guingona, Jr. Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption on November 17,
took his oath as Vice President two (2) days later.46 2000 for plunder, forfeiture, graft and corruption, bribery,
perjury, serious misconduct, violation of the Code of Conduct
On February 7, the Senate passed Resolution No. 83 for Government Employees, etc; (3) OMB Case No. 0-00-1755
declaring that the impeachment court is functus officio and has filed by the Graft Free Philippines Foundation, Inc. on
been terminated.47 Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago stated November 24, 2000 for plunder, forfeiture, graft and corruption,
"for the record" that she voted against the closure of the bribery, perjury, serious misconduct; (4) OMB Case No.
impeachment court on the grounds that the Senate had failed 0-00-1756 filed by Romeo Capulong, et al., on November 28,
to decide on the impeachment case and that the resolution left 2000 for malversation of public funds, illegal use of public
open the question of whether Estrada was still qualified to run funds and property, plunder, etc.; (5) OMB Case No.
for another elective post.48 0-00-1757 filed by Leonard de Vera, et al., on November 28,
2000 for bribery, plunder, indirect bribery, violation of PD 1602,
Meanwhile, in a survey conducted by Pulse Asia, President PD 1829, PD 46, and RA 7080; and (6) OMB Case No.
Arroyo's public acceptance rating jacked up from 16% on 0-00-1758 filed by Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr. on December 4,
January 20, 2001 to 38% on January 26, 2001.49 In another 2000 for plunder, graft and corruption.
survey conducted by the ABS-CBN/SWS from February 2-7,
A special panel of investigators was forthwith created by the respondents' comments "on or before 8:00 a.m. of February
respondent Ombudsman to investigate the charges against 15."
the petitioner. It is chaired by Overall Deputy Ombudsman
Margarito P. Gervasio with the following as members, viz: On February 15, the consolidated cases were orally argued in
Director Andrew Amuyutan, Prosecutor Pelayo Apostol, Atty. a four-hour hearing. Before the hearing, Chief Justice Davide,
Jose de Jesus and Atty. Emmanuel Laureso. On January 22, Jr.51 and Associate Justice Artemio Panganiban52 recused
the panel issued an Order directing the petitioner to file his themselves on motion of petitioner's counsel, former Senator
counter-affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses as well as Rene A. Saguisag. They debunked the charge of counsel
other supporting documents in answer to the aforementioned Saguisag that they have "compromised themselves by
complaints against him. indicating that they have thrown their weight on one side" but
nonetheless inhibited themselves. Thereafter, the parties were
Thus, the stage for the cases at bar was set. On February 5, given the short period of five (5) days to file their memoranda
petitioner filed with this Court GR No. 146710-15, a petition for and two (2) days to submit their simultaneous replies.
prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. It
sought to enjoin the respondent Ombudsman from "conducting In a resolution dated February 20, acting on the urgent motion
any further proceedings in Case Nos. OMB 0-00-1629, 1754, for copies of resolution and press statement for "Gag Order"
1755, 1756, 1757 and 1758 or in any other criminal complaint on respondent Ombudsman filed by counsel for petitioner in
that may be filed in his office, until after the term of petitioner G.R. No. 146738, the Court resolved:
as President is over and only if legally warranted." Thru
another counsel, petitioner, on February 6, filed GR No. "(1) to inform the parties that the Court did not issue a
146738 for Quo Warranto. He prayed for judgment "confirming resolution on January 20, 2001 declaring the office of the
petitioner to be the lawful and incumbent President of the President vacant and that neither did the Chief Justice issue a
Republic of the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge the press statement justifying the alleged resolution;
duties of his office, and declaring respondent to have taken her
oath as and to be holding the Office of the President, only in (2) to order the parties and especially their counsel who are
an acting capacity pursuant to the provisions of the officers of the Court under pain of being cited for contempt to
Constitution." Acting on GR Nos. 146710-15, the Court, on the refrain from making any comment or discussing in public the
same day, February 6, required the respondents "to comment merits of the cases at bar while they are still pending decision
thereon within a non-extendible period expiring on 12 February by the Court, and
2001." On February 13, the Court ordered the consolidation of
GR Nos. 146710-15 and GR No. 146738 and the filing of the (3) to issue a 30-day status quo order effective immediately
enjoining the respondent Ombudsman from resolving or
deciding the criminal cases pending investigation in his office
against petitioner, Joseph E. Estrada and subject of the cases Whether the prosecution of petitioner Estrada should be
at bar, it appearing from news reports that the respondent enjoined on the ground of prejudicial publicity.
Ombudsman may immediately resolve the cases against
petitioner Joseph E. Estrada seven (7) days after the hearing We shall discuss the issues in seriatim.
held on February 15, 2001, which action will make the cases
at bar moot and academic."53 I

The parties filed their replies on February 24. On this date, the Whether or not the cases
cases at bar were deemed submitted for decision.
At bar involve a political question
The bedrock issues for resolution of this Court are:
Private respondents54 raise the threshold issue that the cases
I at bar pose a political question, and hence, are beyond the
jurisdiction of this Court to decide. They contend that shorn of
Whether the petitions present a justiciable controversy. its embroideries, the cases at bar assail the "legitimacy of the
Arroyo administration." They stress that respondent Arroyo
II ascended the presidency through people power; that she has
already taken her oath as the 14th President of the Republic;
Assuming that the petitions present a justiciable controversy, that she has exercised the powers of the presidency and that
whether petitioner Estrada is a President on leave while she has been recognized by foreign governments. They
respondent Arroyo is an Acting President. submit that these realities on ground constitute the political
thicket, which the Court cannot enter.
III
We reject private respondents' submission. To be sure, courts
Whether conviction in the impeachment proceedings is a here and abroad, have tried to lift the shroud on political
condition precedent for the criminal prosecution of petitioner question but its exact latitude still splits the best of legal minds.
Estrada. In the negative and on the assumption that petitioner Developed by the courts in the 20th century, the political
is still President, whether he is immune from criminal question doctrine which rests on the principle of separation of
prosecution. powers and on prudential considerations, continue to be
refined in the mills of constitutional law.55 In the United States,
IV the most authoritative guidelines to determine whether a
question is political were spelled out by Mr. Justice Brennan in degree, the 1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the
the 1962 case or Baker v. Carr,56 viz: political question doctrine when it expanded the power of
judicial review of this court not only to settle actual
"x x x Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
political question is found a textually demonstrable and enforceable but also to determine whether or not there
constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
department or a lack of judicially discoverable and excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
manageable standards for resolving it, or the impossibility of instrumentality of government.59 Heretofore, the judiciary has
deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly focused on the "thou shalt not's" of the Constitution directed
for non-judicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court's against the exercise of its jurisdiction.60 With the new
undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of provision, however, courts are given a greater prerogative to
the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an determine what it can do to prevent grave abuse of discretion
unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment branch or instrumentality of government. Clearly, the new
from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on provision did not just grant the Court power of doing nothing.
question. Unless one of these formulations is inextricable from In sync and symmetry with this intent are other provisions of
the case at bar, there should be no dismissal for non the 1987 Constitution trimming the so called political thicket.
justiciability on the ground of a political question's presence. Prominent of these provisions is section 18 of Article VII which
The doctrine of which we treat is one of 'political questions', empowers this Court in limpid language to "x x x review, in an
not of 'political cases'." appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of
the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
In the Philippine setting, this Court has been continuously suspension of the privilege of the writ (of habeas corpus) or
confronted with cases calling for a firmer delineation of the the extension thereof x x x."
inner and outer perimeters of a political question.57 Our
leading case is Tanada v. Cuenco,58 where this Court, through Respondents rely on the case of Lawyers League for a Better
former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, held that political Philippines and/or Oliver A. Lozano v. President Corazon C.
questions refer "to those questions which, under the Aquino, et al.61 and related cases62 to support their thesis
Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign that since the cases at bar involve the legitimacy of the
capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has government of respondent Arroyo, ergo, they present a
been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the political question. A more cerebral reading of the cited cases
government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the will show that they are inapplicable. In the cited cases, we held
wisdom, not legality of a particular measure." To a great that the government of former President Aquino was the result
of a successful revolution by the sovereign people, albeit a
peaceful one. No less than the Freedom Constitution63 Freedom of speech and the right of assembly are treasured by
declared that the Aquino government was installed through a Filipinos. Denial of these rights was one of the reasons of our
direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people "in defiance 1898 revolution against Spain. Our national hero, Jose P.
of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution, as amended." In is Rizal, raised the clarion call for the recognition of freedom of
familiar learning that the legitimacy of a government sired by a the press of the Filipinos and included it as among "the
successful revolution by people power is beyond judicial reforms sine quibus non."65 The Malolos Constitution, which is
scrutiny for that government automatically orbits out of the the work of the revolutionary Congress in 1898, provided in its
constitutional loop. In checkered contrast, the government of Bill of Rights that Filipinos shall not be deprived (1) of the right
respondent Arroyo is not revolutionary in character. The oath to freely express his ideas or opinions, orally or in writing,
that she took at the EDSA Shrine is the oath under the 1987 through the use of the press or other similar means; (2) of the
Constitution.64 In her oath, she categorically swore to right of association for purposes of human life and which are
preserve and defend the 1987 Constitution. Indeed, she has not contrary to public means; and (3) of the right to send
stressed that she is discharging the powers of the presidency petitions to the authorities, individually or collectively." These
under the authority of the 1987 Constitution. fundamental rights were preserved when the United States
acquired jurisdiction over the Philippines. In the Instruction to
In fine, the legal distinction between EDSA People Power I the Second Philippine Commission of April 7, 1900 issued by
EDSA People Power II is clear. EDSA I involves the exercise President McKinley, it is specifically provided "that no law shall
of the people power of revolution which overthrew the whole be passed abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or
government. EDSA II is an exercise of people power of of the rights of the people to peaceably assemble and petition
freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the the Government for redress of grievances." The guaranty was
government for redress of grievances which only affected the carried over in the Philippine Bill, the Act of Congress of July
office of the President. EDSA I is extra constitutional and the 1, 1902 and the Jones Law, the Act of Congress of August 29,
legitimacy of the new government that resulted from it cannot 1966.66
be the subject of judicial review, but EDSA II is intra
constitutional and the resignation of the sitting President that it Thence on, the guaranty was set in stone in our 1935
caused and the succession of the Vice President as President Constitution,67 and the 197368 Constitution. These rights are
are subject to judicial review. EDSA I presented a political now safely ensconced in section 4, Article III of the 1987
question; EDSA II involves legal questions. A brief discourse Constitution, viz:
on freedom of speech and of the freedom of assembly to
petition the government for redress of grievance which are the "Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of
cutting edge of EDSA People Power II is not inappropriate. speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for proper interpretation of certain provisions in the 1987
redress of grievances." Constitution, notably section 1 of Article II,74 and section 875
of Article VII, and the allocation of governmental powers under
The indispensability of the people's freedom of speech and of section 1176 of Article VII. The issues likewise call for a ruling
assembly to democracy is now self-evident. The reasons are on the scope of presidential immunity from suit. They also
well put by Emerson: first, freedom of expression is essential involve the correct calibration of the right of petitioner against
as a means of assuring individual fulfillment; second, it is an prejudicial publicity. As early as the 1803 case of Marbury v.
essential process for advancing knowledge and discovering Madison,77 the doctrine has been laid down that "it is
truth; third, it is essential to provide for participation in emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department
decision-making by all members of society; and fourth, it is a to say what the law is . . ." Thus, respondent's in vocation of
method of achieving a more adaptable and hence, a more the doctrine of political question is but a foray in the dark.
stable community of maintaining the precarious balance
between healthy cleavage and necessary consensus."69 In II
this sense, freedom of speech and of assembly provides a
framework in which the "conflict necessary to the progress of a Whether or not the petitioner
society can take place without destroying the society."70 In Resigned as President
Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization,71 this function
of free speech and assembly was echoed in the amicus curiae We now slide to the second issue. None of the parties
filed by the Bill of Rights Committee of the American Bar considered this issue as posing a political question. Indeed, it
Association which emphasized that "the basis of the right of involves a legal question whose factual ingredient is
assembly is the substitution of the expression of opinion and determinable from the records of the case and by resort to
belief by talk rather than force; and this means talk for all and judicial notice. Petitioner denies he resigned as President or
by all."72 In the relatively recent case of Subayco v. that he suffers from a permanent disability. Hence, he submits
Sandiganbayan,73 this Court similar stressed that "… it should that the office of the President was not vacant when
be clear even to those with intellectual deficits that when the respondent Arroyo took her oath as President.
sovereign people assemble to petition for redress of
grievances, all should listen. For in a democracy, it is the The issue brings under the microscope the meaning of section
people who count; those who are deaf to their grievances are 8, Article VII of the Constitution which provides:
ciphers."
"Sec. 8. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from
Needless to state, the cases at bar pose legal and not political office or resignation of the President, the Vice President shall
questions. The principal issues for resolution require the become the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of
death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation To appreciate the public pressure that led to the resignation of
of both the President and Vice President, the President of the the petitioner, it is important to follow the succession of events
Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of after the exposẻ of Governor Singson. The Senate Blue
Representatives, shall then act as President until the President Ribbon Committee investigated. The more detailed revelations
or Vice President shall have been elected and qualified. of petitioner's alleged misgovernance in the Blue Ribbon
investigation spiked the hate against him. The Articles of
x x x." Impeachment filed in the House of Representatives which
initially was given a near cipher chance of succeeding
The issue then is whether the petitioner resigned as President snowballed. In express speed, it gained the signatures of 115
or should be considered resigned as of January 20, 2001 representatives or more than 1/3 of the House of
when respondent took her oath as the 14th President of the Representatives. Soon, petitioner's powerful political allies
Public. Resignation is not a high level legal abstraction. It is a began deserting him. Respondent Arroyo quit as Secretary of
factual question and its elements are beyond quibble: there Social Welfare. Senate President Drilon and former Speaker
must be an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by Villar defected with 47 representatives in tow. Then, his
acts of relinquishment.78 The validity of a resignation is not respected senior economic advisers resigned together with his
government by any formal requirement as to form. It can be Secretary of Trade and Industry.
oral. It can be written. It can be express. It can be implied. As
long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect. As the political isolation of the petitioner worsened, the
people's call for his resignation intensified. The call reached a
In the cases at bar, the facts show that petitioner did not write new crescendo when the eleven (11) members of the
any formal letter of resignation before he evacuated impeachment tribunal refused to open the second envelope. It
Malacañang Palace in the afternoon of January 20, 2001 after sent the people to paroxysms of outrage. Before the night of
the oath-taking of respondent Arroyo. Consequently, whether January 16 was over, the EDSA Shrine was swarming with
or not petitioner resigned has to be determined from his act people crying for redress of their grievance. Their number
and omissions before, during and after January 20, 2001 or by grew exponentially. Rallies and demonstration quickly spread
the totality of prior, contemporaneous and posterior facts and to the countryside like a brush fire.
circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on the
issue. As events approached January 20, we can have an
authoritative window on the state of mind of the petitioner. The
Using this totality test, we hold that petitioner resigned as window is provided in the "Final Days of Joseph Ejercito
President. Estrada," the diary of Executive Secretary Angara serialized in
the Philippine Daily Inquirer.79 The Angara Diary reveals that
in the morning of January 19, petitioner's loyal advisers were five-day grace period he could stay in the palace. It was a
worried about the swelling of the crowd at EDSA, hence, they matter of time.
decided to create an ad hoc committee to handle it. Their
worry would worsen. At 1:20 p.m., petitioner pulled Secretary The pressure continued piling up. By 11:00 p.m., former
Angara into his small office at the presidential residence and President Ramos called up Secretary Angara and requested,
exclaimed: "Ed, seryoso na ito. Kumalas na si Angelo (Reyes) "Ed, magtulungan tayo para magkaroon tayo ng (let's
(Ed, this is serious. Angelo has defected.)"80 An hour later or cooperate to ensure a) peaceful and orderly transfer of
at 2:30 p.m., the petitioner decided to call for a snap power."86 There was no defiance to the request. Secretary
presidential election and stressed he would not be a Angara readily agreed. Again, we note that at this stage, the
candidate. The proposal for a snap election for president in problem was already about a peaceful and orderly transfer of
May where he would not be a candidate is an indicium that power. The resignation of the petitioner was implied.
petitioner had intended to give up the presidency even at that
time. At 3:00 p.m., General Reyes joined the sea of EDSA The first negotiation for a peaceful and orderly transfer of
demonstrators demanding the resignation of the petitioner and power immediately started at 12:20 a.m. of January 20, that
dramatically announced the AFP's withdrawal of support from fateful Saturday. The negotiation was limited to three (3)
the petitioner and their pledge of support to respondent points: (1) the transition period of five days after the
Arroyo. The seismic shift of support left petitioner weak as a petitioner's resignation; (2) the guarantee of the safety of the
president. According to Secretary Angara, he asked Senator petitioner and his family, and (3) the agreement to open the
Pimentel to advise petitioner to consider the option of second envelope to vindicate the name of the petitioner.87
"dignified exit or resignation."81 Petitioner did not disagree but Again, we note that the resignation of petitioner was not a
listened intently.82 The sky was falling fast on the petitioner. At disputed point. The petitioner cannot feign ignorance of this
9:30 p.m., Senator Pimentel repeated to the petitioner the fact. According to Secretary Angara, at 2:30 a.m., he briefed
urgency of making a graceful and dignified exit. He gave the the petitioner on the three points and the following entry in the
proposal a sweetener by saying that petitioner would be Angara Diary shows the reaction of the petitioner, viz:
allowed to go abroad with enough funds to support him and his
family.83 Significantly, the petitioner expressed no objection to "x x x
the suggestion for a graceful and dignified exit but said he
would never leave the country.84 At 10:00 p.m., petitioner I explain what happened during the first round of negotiations.
revealed to Secretary Angara, "Ed, Angie (Reyes) guaranteed The President immediately stresses that he just wants the
that I would have five days to a week in the palace."85 This is five-day period promised by Reyes, as well as to open the
proof that petitioner had reconciled himself to the reality that second envelope to clear his name.
he had to resign. His mind was already concerned with the
If the envelope is opened, on Monday, he says, he will leave 2. Beginning to day, 20 January 2001, the transition process
by Monday. for the assumption of the new administration shall commence,
and persons designated by the Vice President to various
The President says. "Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko na positions and offices of the government shall start their
masyado nang masakit. Pagod na ako sa red tape, orientation activities in coordination with the incumbent officials
bureaucracy, intriga. (I am very tired. I don't want any more of concerned.
this – it's too painful. I'm tired of the red tape, the bureaucracy,
the intrigue.) 3. The Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine
National Police shall function under the Vice President as
I just want to clear my name, then I will go."88 national military and police authority effective immediately.

Again, this is high grade evidence that the petitioner has 4. The Armed Forced of the Philippines, through its Chief of
resigned. The intent to resign is clear when he said "x x x Staff, shall guarantee the security of the President and his
Ayoko na masyado nang masakit." "Ayoko na" are words of family as approved by the national military and police authority
resignation. (Vice President).

The second round of negotiation resumed at 7:30 a.m. 5. It is to be noted that the Senate will open the second
According to the Angara Diary, the following happened: envelope in connection with the alleged savings account of the
President in the Equitable PCI Bank in accordance with the
"Opposition's deal rules of the Senate, pursuant to the request to the Senate
President.
7:30 a.m. – Rene arrives with Bert Romulo and (Ms.
Macapagal's spokesperson) Rene Corona. For this round, I Our deal
am accompanied by Dondon Bagatsing and Macel.
We bring out, too, our discussion draft which reads:
Rene pulls out a document titled "Negotiating Points." It reads:
The undersigned parties, for and in behalf of their respective
'1. The President shall sign a resignation document within the principals, agree and undertake as follows:
day, 20 January 2001, that will be effective on Wednesday, 24
January 2001, on which day the Vice President will assume '1. A transition will occur and take place on Wednesday, 24
the Presidency of the Republic of the Philippines. January 2001, at which time President Joseph Ejercito Estrada
will turn over the presidency to Vice President Gloria affixed to this agreement and insure faithful implementation
Macapagal-Arroyo. and observance thereof.

'2. In return, President Estrada and his families are guaranteed Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo shall issue a public
security and safety of their person and property throughout statement in the form and tenor provided for in "Annex A"
their natural lifetimes. Likewise, President Estrada and his heretofore attached to this agreement."89
families are guarantee freedom from persecution or retaliation
from government and the private sector throughout their The second round of negotiation cements the reading that the
natural lifetimes. petitioner has resigned. It will be noted that during this second
round of negotiation, the resignation of the petitioner was
This commitment shall be guaranteed by the Armed Forces of again treated as a given fact. The only unsettled points at that
the Philippines (AFP) through the Chief of Staff, as approved time were the measures to be undertaken by the parties during
by the national military and police authorities – Vice President and after the transition period.
(Macapagal).
According to Secretary Angara, the draft agreement, which
'3. Both parties shall endeavor to ensure that the Senate sitting was premised on the resignation of the petitioner was further
as an impeachment court will authorize the opening of the refined. It was then, signed by their side and he was ready to
second envelope in the impeachment trial as proof that the fax it to General Reyes and Senator Pimentel to await the
subject savings account does not belong to President Estrada. signature of the United Opposition. However, the signing by
the party of the respondent Arroyo was aborted by her
'4. During the five-day transition period between 20 January oath-taking. The Angara diary narrates the fateful events,
2001 and 24 January 2001 (the 'Transition Period"), the viz;90
incoming Cabinet members shall receive an appropriate
briefing from the outgoing Cabinet officials as part of the "xxx
orientation program.
11:00 a.m. – Between General Reyes and myself, there is a
During the Transition Period, the AFP and the Philippine firm agreement on the five points to effect a peaceful
National Police (PNP) shall function Vice President transition. I can hear the general clearing all these points with
(Macapagal) as national military and police authorities. a group he is with. I hear voices in the background.

Both parties hereto agree that the AFP chief of staff and PNP Agreement.
director general shall obtain all the necessary signatures as
The agreement starts: 1. The President shall resign today, 20
January 2001, which resignation shall be effective on 24 11:20 a.m. – I am all set to fax General Reyes and Nene
January 2001, on which day the Vice President will assume Pimentel our agreement, signed by our side and awaiting the
the presidency of the Republic of the Philippines. signature of the United opposition.

xxx And then it happens. General Reyes calls me to say that the
Supreme Court has decided that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is
The rest of the agreement follows: President and will be sworn in at 12 noon.

2. The transition process for the assumption of the new 'Bakit hindi naman kayo nakahintay? Paano na ang agreement
administration shall commence on 20 January 2001, wherein (why couldn't you wait? What about the agreement)?' I asked.
persons designated by the Vice President to various
government positions shall start orientation activities with Reyes answered: 'Wala na, sir (it's over, sir).'
incumbent officials.
I ask him: Di yung transition period, moot and academic na?'
'3. The Armed Forces of the Philippines through its Chief of
Staff, shall guarantee the safety and security of the President And General Reyes answers: ' Oo nga, I delete na natin, sir
and his families throughout their natural lifetimes as approved (yes, we're deleting the part).'
by the national military and police authority – Vice President.
Contrary to subsequent reports, I do not react and say that
'4. The AFP and the Philippine National Police (PNP) shall there was a double cross.
function under the Vice President as national military and
police authorities. But I immediately instruct Macel to delete the first provision on
resignation since this matter is already moot and academic.
'5. Both parties request the impeachment court to open the Within moments, Macel erases the first provision and faxes the
second envelope in the impeachment trial, the contents of documents, which have been signed by myself, Dondon and
which shall be offered as proof that the subject savings Macel, to Nene Pimentel and General Reyes.
account does not belong to the President.
I direct Demaree Ravel to rush the original document to
The Vice President shall issue a public statement in the form General Reyes for the signatures of the other side, as it is
and tenor provided for in Annex "B" heretofore attached to this important that the provisions on security, at least, should be
agreement. respected.
 The statement reads: At twelve o'clock noon today, Vice
I then advise the President that the Supreme Court has ruled President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took her oath as President
that Chief Justice Davide will administer the oath to Gloria at of the Republic of the Philippines. While along with many other
12 noon. legal minds of our country, I have strong and serious doubts
about the legality and constitutionality of her proclamation as
The President is too stunned for words: President, I do not wish to be a factor that will prevent the
restoration of unity and order in our civil society.
Final meal
It is for this reason that I now leave Malacañang Palace, the
12 noon – Gloria takes her oath as president of the Republic of seat of the presidency of this country, for the sake of peace
the Philippines. and in order to begin the healing process of our nation. I leave
the Palace of our people with gratitude for the opportunities
12:20 p.m. – The PSG distributes firearms to some people given to me for service to our people. I will not shirk from any
inside the compound. future challenges that may come ahead in the same service of
our country.
The president is having his final meal at the presidential
Residence with the few friends and Cabinet members who I call on all my supporters and followers to join me in the
have gathered. promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and
solidarity.
By this time, demonstrators have already broken down the first
line of defense at Mendiola. Only the PSG is there to protect May the Almighty bless our country and our beloved people.
the Palace, since the police and military have already
withdrawn their support for the President. MABUHAY!"'

1 p.m. – The President's personal staff is rushing to pack as It was curtain time for the petitioner.
many of the Estrada family's personal possessions as they
can. In sum, we hold that the resignation of the petitioner cannot be
doubted. It was confirmed by his leaving Malacañang. In the
During lunch, Ronnie Puno mentions that the president needs press release containing his final statement, (1) he
to release a final statement before leaving Malacañang. acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President
of the Republic albeit with reservation about its legality; (2) he
emphasized he was leaving the Palace, the seat of the
presidency, for the sake of peace and in order to begin the
healing process of our nation. He did not say he was leaving To say the least, the above letter is wrapped in mystery.91 The
the Palace due to any kind inability and that he was going to pleadings filed by the petitioner in the cases at bar did not
re-assume the presidency as soon as the disability discuss, may even intimate, the circumstances that led to its
disappears: (3) he expressed his gratitude to the people for preparation. Neither did the counsel of the petitioner reveal to
the opportunity to serve them. Without doubt, he was referring the Court these circumstances during the oral argument. It
to the past opportunity given him to serve the people as strikes the Court as strange that the letter, despite its legal
President (4) he assured that he will not shirk from any future value, was never referred to by the petitioner during the
challenge that may come ahead in the same service of our week-long crisis. To be sure, there was not the slightest hint of
country. Petitioner's reference is to a future challenge after its existence when he issued his final press release. It was all
occupying the office of the president which he has given up; too easy for him to tell the Filipino people in his press release
and (5) he called on his supporters to join him in the promotion that he was temporarily unable to govern and that he was
of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. leaving the reins of government to respondent Arroyo for the
Certainly, the national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity time bearing. Under any circumstance, however, the
could not be attained if he did not give up the presidency. The mysterious letter cannot negate the resignation of the
press release was petitioner's valedictory, his final act of petitioner. If it was prepared before the press release of the
farewell. His presidency is now in the part tense. petitioner clearly as a later act. If, however, it was prepared
after the press released, still, it commands scant legal
It is, however, urged that the petitioner did not resign but only significance. Petitioner's resignation from the presidency
took a temporary leave dated January 20, 2001 of the cannot be the subject of a changing caprice nor of a whimsical
petitioner sent to Senate President Pimentel and Speaker will especially if the resignation is the result of his reputation by
Fuentebella is cited. Again, we refer to the said letter, viz: the people. There is another reason why this Court cannot
given any legal significance to petitioner's letter and this shall
"Sir. be discussed in issue number III of this Decision.

By virtue of the provisions of Section II, Article VII of the After petitioner contended that as a matter of fact he did not
Constitution, I am hereby transmitting this declaration that I am resign, he also argues that he could not resign as a matter of
unable to exercise the powers and duties of my office. By law. He relies on section 12 of RA No. 3019, otherwise known
operation of law and the Constitution, the Vice President shall as the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which allegedly
be the Acting president. prohibits his resignation, viz:

(Sgd.) Joseph Ejercito Estrada"

"Sec. 12. No public officer shall be allowed to resign or retire provision and insisted that the President's immunity should
pending an investigation, criminals or administrative, or extend after his tenure.
pending a prosecution against him, for any offense under this
Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on Senate Bill No. 571, which was substantially similar Senate Bill
bribery." No. 293, was thereafter passed. Section 15 above became
section 13 under the new bill, but the deliberations on this
A reading of the legislative history of RA No. 3019 will hardly particular provision mainly focused on the immunity of the
provide any comfort to the petitioner. RA No. 3019 originated President, which was one of the reasons for the veto of the
form Senate Bill No. 293. The original draft of the bill, when it original bill. There was hardly any debate on the prohibition
was submitted to the Senate, did not contain a provision against the resignation or retirement of a public official with
similar to section 12 of the law as it now stands. However, in pending criminal and administrative cases against him. Be that
his sponsorship speech, Senator Arturo Tolentino, the author as it may, the intent of the law ought to be obvious. It is to
of the bill, "reserved to propose during the period of prevent the act of resignation or retirement from being used by
amendments the inclusion of a provision to the effect that no a public official as a protective shield to stop the investigation
public official who is under prosecution for any act of graft or of a pending criminal or administrative case against him and to
corruption, or is under administrative investigation, shall be prevent his prosecution under the Anti-Graft Law or
allowed to voluntarily resign or retire."92 During the period of prosecution for bribery under the Revised Penal Code. To be
amendments, the following provision was inserted as section sure, no person can be compelled to render service for that
15: would be a violation of his constitutional right.94 A public
official has the right not to serve if he really wants to retire or
"Sec. 15. Termination of office – No public official shall be resign. Nevertheless, if at the time he resigns or retires, a
allowed to resign or retire pending an investigation, criminal or public official is facing administrative or criminal investigation
administrative, or pending a prosecution against him, for any or prosecution, such resignation or retirement will not cause
offense under the Act or under the provisions of the Revised the dismissal of the criminal or administrative proceedings
Penal Code on bribery. against him. He cannot use his resignation or retirement to
avoid prosecution.
The separation or cessation of a public official form office shall
not be a bar to his prosecution under this Act for an offense There is another reason why petitioner's contention should be
committed during his incumbency."93 rejected. In the cases at bar, the records show that when
petitioner resigned on January 20, 2001, the cases filed
The bill was vetoed by then President Carlos P. Garcia who against him before the Ombudsman were OMB Case Nos.
questioned the legality of the second paragraph of the 0-00-1629, 0-00-1755, 0-00-1756, 0-00-1757 and 0-00-1758.
While these cases have been filed, the respondent the presidency, and hence is a President on leave. As
Ombudsman refrained from conducting the preliminary aforestated, the inability claim is contained in the January 20,
investigation of the petitioner for the reason that as the sitting 2001 letter of petitioner sent on the same day to Senate
President then, petitioner was immune from suit. Technically, President Pimentel and Speaker Fuentebella.
the said cases cannot be considered as pending for the
Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to act on them. Section 12 of Petitioner postulates that respondent Arroyo as Vice President
RA No. 3019 cannot therefore be invoked by the petitioner for has no power to adjudge the inability of the petitioner to
it contemplates of cases whose investigation or prosecution do discharge the powers and duties of the presidency. His
not suffer from any insuperable legal obstacle like the significant submittal is that "Congress has the ultimate
immunity from suit of a sitting President. authority under the Constitution to determine whether the
President is incapable of performing his functions in the
Petitioner contends that the impeachment proceeding is an manner provided for in section 11 of article VII."95 This
administrative investigation that, under section 12 of RA 3019, contention is the centerpiece of petitioner's stance that he is a
bars him from resigning. We hold otherwise. The exact nature President on leave and respondent Arroyo is only an Acting
of an impeachment proceeding is debatable. But even President.
assuming arguendo that it is an administrative proceeding, it
can not be considered pending at the time petitioner resigned An examination of section 11, Article VII is in order. It provides:
because the process already broke down when a majority of
the senator-judges voted against the opening of the second "SEC. 11. Whenever the President transmits to the President
envelope, the public and private prosecutors walked out, the of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
public prosecutors filed their Manifestation of Withdrawal of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to
Appearance, and the proceedings were postponed indefinitely. discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he
There was, in effect, no impeachment case pending against transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such
petitioner when he resigned. powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice-President
as Acting President.
III
Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet
Whether or not the petitioner Is only temporarily unable to Act transmit to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of
as President. the House of Representatives their written declaration that the
President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his
We shall now tackle the contention of the petitioner that he is office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the
merely temporarily unable to perform the powers and duties of powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of "RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SUPPORT OF THE
the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE ASSUMPTION
Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, INTO OFFICE BY VICE PRESIDENT GLORIA
he shall reassume the powers and duties of his office. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO AS PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
Meanwhile, should a majority of all the Members of the OF THE PHILIPPINES, EXTENDING ITS
Cabinet transmit within five days to the President of the CONGRATULATIONS AND EXPRESSING ITS SUPPORT
Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives FOR HER ADMINISTRATION AS A PARTNER IN THE
their written declaration that the President is unable to ATTAINMENT OF THE NATION'S GOALS UNDER THE
discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Congress CONSTITUTION
shall decide the issue. For that purpose, the Congress shall
convene, if it is not in session, within forty-eight hours, in WHEREAS, as a consequence of the people's loss of
accordance with its rules and without need of call. confidence on the ability of former President Joseph Ejercito
Estrada to effectively govern, the Armed Forces of the
If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written Philippines, the Philippine National Police and majority of his
declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve days after it is cabinet had withdrawn support from him;
required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both
Houses, voting separately, that the President is unable to WHEREAS, upon authority of an en banc resolution of the
discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Supreme Court, Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was
Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise, the President sworn in as President of the Philippines on 20 January 2001
shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office." before Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.;

That is the law. Now, the operative facts: WHEREAS, immediately thereafter, members of the
international community had extended their recognition to Her
Petitioner, on January 20, 2001, sent the above letter claiming Excellency, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the
inability to the Senate President and Speaker of the House; Republic of the Philippines;
Unaware of the letter, respondent Arroyo took her oath of
office as President on January 20, 2001 at about 12:30 p.m.; WHEREAS, Her Excellency, President Gloria
Despite receipt of the letter, the House of Representatives Macapagal-Arroyo has espoused a policy of national healing
passed on January 24, 2001 House Resolution No. 175;96 and reconciliation with justice for the purpose of national unity
On the same date, the House of the Representatives passed and development;
House Resolution No. 17697 which states:
WHEREAS, it is axiomatic that the obligations of the
government cannot be achieved if it is divided, thus by reason (Sgd.) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR.
of the constitutional duty of the House of Representatives as Speaker
an institution and that of the individual members thereof of
fealty to the supreme will of the people, the House of This Resolution was adopted by the House of Representatives
Representatives must ensure to the people a stable, on January 24, 2001.
continuing government and therefore must remove all
obstacles to the attainment thereof; (Sgd.) ROBERTO P. NAZARENO
Secretary General"
WHEREAS, it is a concomitant duty of the House of
Representatives to exert all efforts to unify the nation, to On February 7, 2001, the House of the Representatives
eliminate fractious tension, to heal social and political wounds, passed House Resolution No. 17898 which states:
and to be an instrument of national reconciliation and solidarity
as it is a direct representative of the various segments of the "RESOLUTION CONFIRMING PRESIDENT GLORIA
whole nation; MACAPAGAL-ARROYO'S NOMINATION OF SENATOR
TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. AS VICE PRESIDENT OF
WHEREAS, without surrending its independence, it is vital for THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
the attainment of all the foregoing, for the House of
Representatives to extend its support and collaboration to the WHEREAS, there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice
administration of Her Excellency, President Gloria President due to the assumption to the Presidency of Vice
Macapagal-Arroyo, and to be a constructive partner in President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo;
nation-building, the national interest demanding no less: Now,
therefore, be it WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9, Article VII of the
Constitution, the President in the event of such vacancy shall
Resolved by the House of Representatives, To express its nominate a Vice President from among the members of the
support to the assumption into office by Vice President Gloria Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume
Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Republic of the office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all members of
Philippines, to extend its congratulations and to express its both Houses voting separately;
support for her administration as a partner in the attainment of
the Nation's goals under the Constitution. WHEREAS, Her Excellency, President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo has nominated Senate Minority Leader
Adopted,
Teofisto T. Guingona Jr., to the position of Vice President of the (4) Also, despite receipt of petitioner's letter claiming inability,
Republic of the Philippines; some twelve (12) members of the Senate signed the following:

WHEREAS, Senator Teofisto T. Guingona Jr., is a public "RESOLUTION

servant endowed with integrity, competence and courage; who
has served the Filipino people with dedicated responsibility WHEREAS, the recent transition in government offers the
and patriotism; nation an opportunity for meaningful change and challenge;

WHEREAS, Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. possesses WHEREAS, to attain desired changes and overcome
sterling qualities of true statesmanship, having served the awesome challenges the nation needs unity of purpose and
government in various capacities, among others, as Delegate resolve cohesive resolute (sic) will;
to the Constitutional Convention, Chairman of the Commission
on Audit, Executive Secretary, Secretary of Justice, Senator of WHEREAS, the Senate of the Philippines has been the forum
the Philippines – qualities which merit his nomination to the for vital legislative measures in unity despite diversities in
position of Vice President of the Republic: Now, therefore, be it perspectives;

Resolved as it is hereby resolved by the House of WHEREFORE, we recognize and express support to the new
Representatives, That the House of Representatives confirms government of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and resolve
the nomination of Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. as the Vice to discharge and overcome the nation's challenges." 99
President of the Republic of the Philippines.
On February 7, the Senate also passed Senate Resolution No.
Adopted, 82100 which states:

(Sgd.) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR. "RESOLUTION CONFIRMING PRESIDENT GLORIA

Speaker MACAPAGAL ARROYO'S NOMINATION OF SEM.
TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. AS VICE PRESIDENT OF
This Resolution was adopted by the House of Representatives THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
on February 7, 2001.
WHEREAS, there is vacancy in the Office of the Vice
(Sgd.) ROBERTO P. NAZARENO President due to the assumption to the Presidency of Vice
Secretary General" President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9 Article VII of the President of the Senate
Constitution, the President in the event of such vacancy shall
nominate a Vice President from among the members of the This Resolution was adopted by the Senate on February 7,
Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume 2001.
office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all members of
both Houses voting separately; (Sgd.) LUTGARDO B. BARBO
Secretary of the Senate"
WHEREAS, Her Excellency, President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo has nominated Senate Minority Leader On the same date, February 7, the Senate likewise passed
Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. to the position of Vice President of the Senate Resolution No. 83101 which states:
Republic of the Philippines;
"RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THAT THE IMPEACHMENT
WHEREAS, Sen. Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. is a public servant COURT IS FUNCTUS OFFICIO
endowed with integrity, competence and courage; who has
served the Filipino people with dedicated responsibility and Resolved, as it is hereby resolved. That the Senate recognize
patriotism; that the Impeachment Court is functus officio and has been
terminated.
WHEREAS, Sen. Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. possesses sterling
qualities of true statemanship, having served the government Resolved, further, That the Journals of the Impeachment Court
in various capacities, among others, as Delegate to the on Monday, January 15, Tuesday, January 16 and
Constitutional Convention, Chairman of the Commission on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 be considered approved.
Audit, Executive Secretary, Secretary of Justice, Senator of the
land - which qualities merit his nomination to the position of Resolved, further, That the records of the Impeachment Court
Vice President of the Republic: Now, therefore, be it including the "second envelope" be transferred to the Archives
of the Senate for proper safekeeping and preservation in
Resolved, as it is hereby resolved, That the Senate confirm accordance with the Rules of the Senate. Disposition and
the nomination of Sen. Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. as Vice retrieval thereof shall be made only upon written approval of
President of the Republic of the Philippines. the Senate president.

Adopted, Resolved, finally. That all parties concerned be furnished

copies of this Resolution.
(Sgd.) AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL JR.
Adopted, that the inability of petitioner Estrada. Is no longer temporary.
Congress has clearly rejected petitioner's claim of inability.
(Sgd.) AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR.
President of the Senate The question is whether this Court has jurisdiction to review
the claim of temporary inability of petitioner Estrada and
This Resolution was adopted by the Senate on February 7, thereafter revise the decision of both Houses of Congress
2001. recognizing respondent Arroyo as president of the Philippines.
Following Tañada v. Cuenco,102 we hold that this Court
(Sgd.) LUTGARDO B. BARBO cannot exercise its judicial power or this is an issue "in regard
Secretary of the Senate" to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the
Legislative xxx branch of the government." Or to use the
(5) On February 8, the Senate also passed Resolution No. 84 language in Baker vs. Carr,103 there is a "textually
"certifying to the existence of vacancy in the Senate and demonstrable or a lack of judicially discoverable and
calling on the COMELEC to fill up such vacancy through manageable standards for resolving it." Clearly, the Court
election to be held simultaneously with the regular election on cannot pass upon petitioner's claim of inability to discharge the
May 14, 2001 and the Senatorial candidate garnering the power and duties of the presidency. The question is political in
thirteenth (13th) highest number of votes shall serve only for nature and addressed solely to Congress by constitutional fiat.
the unexpired term of Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr.' It is a political issue, which cannot be decided by this Court
without transgressing the principle of separation of powers.
(6) Both houses of Congress started sending bills to be signed
into law by respondent Arroyo as President. In fine, even if the petitioner can prove that he did not resign,
still, he cannot successfully claim that he is a President on
(7) Despite the lapse of time and still without any functioning leave on the ground that he is merely unable to govern
Cabinet, without any recognition from any sector of temporarily. That claim has been laid to rest by Congress and
government, and without any support from the Armed Forces the decision that respondent Arroyo is the de jure, president
of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police, the made by a co-equal branch of government cannot be reviewed
petitioner continues to claim that his inability to govern is only by this Court.
momentary.
IV
What leaps to the eye from these irrefutable facts is that both
houses of Congress have recognized respondent Arroyo as Whether or not the petitioner enjoys immunity from suit.
the President. Implicitly clear in that recognition is the premise
Assuming he enjoys immunity, the extent of the immunity members of the Legislature, may not be personally mulcted in
civil damages for the consequences of an act executed in the
Petitioner Estrada makes two submissions: first, the cases performance of his official duties. The judiciary has full power
filed against him before the respondent Ombudsman should to, and will, when the mater is properly presented to it and the
be prohibited because he has not been convicted in the occasion justly warrants it, declare an act of the
impeachment proceedings against him; and second, he enjoys Governor-General illegal and void and place as nearly as
immunity from all kinds of suit, whether criminal or civil. possible in status quo any person who has been deprived his
liberty or his property by such act. This remedy is assured to
Before resolving petitioner's contentions, a revisit of our legal every person, however humble or of whatever country, when
history executive immunity will be most enlightening. The his personal or property rights have been invaded, even by the
doctrine of executive immunity in this jurisdiction emerged as a highest authority of the state. The thing which the judiciary can
case law. In the 1910 case of Forbes, etc. vs. Chuoco Tiaco not do is mulct the Governor-General personally in damages
and Crosfield,104 the respondent Tiaco, a Chinese citizen, which result from the performance of his official duty, any more
sued petitioner W. Cameron Forbes, Governor-General of the than it can a member of the Philippine Commission of the
Philippine Islands. J.E. Harding and C.R. Trowbridge, Chief of Philippine Assembly. Public policy forbids it.
Police and Chief of the Secret Service of the City of Manila,
respectively, for damages for allegedly conspiring to deport Neither does this principle of nonliability mean that the chief
him to China. In granting a writ of prohibition, this Court, executive may not be personally sued at all in relation to acts
speaking thru Mr. Justice Johnson, held: which he claims to perform as such official. On the contrary, it
clearly appears from the discussion heretofore had,
" The principle of nonliability, as herein enunciated, does not particularly that portion which touched the liability of judges
mean that the judiciary has no authority to touch the acts of and drew an analogy between such liability and that of the
the Governor-General; that he may, under cover of his office, Governor-General, that the latter is liable when he acts in a
do what he will, unimpeded and unrestrained. Such a case so plainly outside of his power and authority that he can
construction would mean that tyranny, under the guise of the not be said to have exercised discretion in determining
execution of the law, could walk defiantly abroad, destroying whether or not he had the right to act. What is held here is that
rights of person and of property, wholly free from interference he will be protected from personal liability for damages not
of courts or legislatures. This does not mean, either that a only when he acts within his authority, but also when he is
person injured by the executive authority by an act without authority, provided he actually used discretion and
unjustifiable under the law has n remedy, but must submit in judgement, that is, the judicial faculty, in determining whether
silence. On the contrary, it means, simply, that the he had authority to act or not. In other words, in determining
governors-general, like the judges if the courts and the the question of his authority. If he decide wrongly, he is still
protected provided the question of his authority was one over In his second Vicente G. Sinco professional Chair lecture
which two men, reasonably qualified for that position, might entitled, "Presidential Immunity and All The King's Men: The
honestly differ; but he s not protected if the lack of authority to Law of Privilege As a Defense To Actions For Damages,"106
act is so plain that two such men could not honestly differ over petitioner's learned counsel, former Dean of the UP College of
its determination. In such case, be acts, not as Law, Atty. Pacificao Agabin, brightened the modifications
Governor-General but as a private individual, and as such effected by this constitutional amendment on the existing law
must answer for the consequences of his act." on executive privilege. To quote his disquisition:

Mr. Justice Johnson underscored the consequences if the "In the Philippines, though, we sought to do the Americans one
Chief Executive was not granted immunity from suit, viz "xxx. better by enlarging and fortifying the absolute immunity
Action upon important matters of state delayed; the time and concept. First, we extended it to shield the President not only
substance of the chief executive spent in wrangling litigation; form civil claims but also from criminal cases and other claims.
disrespect engendered for the person of one of the highest Second, we enlarged its scope so that it would cover even
officials of the state and for the office he occupies; a tendency acts of the President outside the scope of official duties. And
to unrest and disorder resulting in a way, in distrust as to the third, we broadened its coverage so as to include not only the
integrity of government itself."105 President but also other persons, be they government officials
or private individuals, who acted upon orders of the President.
Our 1935 Constitution took effect but it did not contain any It can be said that at that point most of us were suffering from
specific provision on executive immunity. Then came the AIDS (or absolute immunity defense syndrome)."
tumult of the martial law years under the late President
Ferdinand E. Marcos and the 1973 Constitution was born. In The Opposition in the then Batasan Pambansa sought the
1981, it was amended and one of the amendments involved repeal of this Marcosian concept of executive immunity in the
executive immunity. Section 17, Article VII stated: 1973 Constitution. The move was led by them Member of
Parliament, now Secretary of Finance, Alberto Romulo, who
"The President shall be immune from suit during his tenure. argued that the after incumbency immunity granted to
Thereafter, no suit whatsoever shall lie for official acts done by President Marcos violated the principle that a public office is a
him or by others pursuant to his specific orders during his public trust. He denounced the immunity as a return to the
tenure. anachronism "the king can do no wrong."107 The effort failed.

The immunities herein provided shall apply to the incumbent The 1973 Constitution ceased to exist when President Marcos
President referred to in Article XVII of this Constitution. was ousted from office by the People Power revolution in
1986. When the 1987 Constitution was crafted, its framers did
not reenact the executive immunity provision of the 1973 I think the Commissioner for the clarifications."
Constitution. The following explanation was given by delegate
J. Bernas vis:108 We shall now rule on the contentions of petitioner in the light of
this history. We reject his argument that he cannot be
"Mr. Suarez. Thank you. prosecuted for the reason that he must first be convicted in the
impeachment proceedings. The impeachment trial of petitioner
The last question is with reference to the Committee's omitting Estrada was aborted by the walkout of the prosecutors and by
in the draft proposal the immunity provision for the President. I the events that led to his loss of the presidency. Indeed, on
agree with Commissioner Nolledo that the Committee did very February 7, 2001, the Senate passed Senate Resolution No.
well in striking out second sentence, at the very least, of the 83 "Recognizing that the Impeachment Court is Functus
original provision on immunity from suit under the 1973 Officio."109 Since, the Impeachment Court is now functus
Constitution. But would the Committee members not agree to officio, it is untenable for petitioner to demand that he should
a restoration of at least the first sentence that the President first be impeached and then convicted before he can be
shall be immune from suit during his tenure, considering that if prosecuted. The plea if granted, would put a perpetual bar
we do not provide him that kind of an immunity, he might be against his prosecution. Such a submission has nothing to
spending all his time facing litigation's, as the commend itself for it will place him in a better situation than a
President-in-exile in Hawaii is now facing litigation's almost non-sitting President who has not been subjected to
daily? impeachment proceedings and yet can be the object of a
criminal prosecution. To be sure, the debates in the
Fr. Bernas. The reason for the omission is that we consider it Constitutional Commission make it clear that when
understood in present jurisprudence that during his tenure he impeachment proceedings have become moot due to the
is immune from suit. resignation of the President, the proper criminal and civil cases
may already be filed against him, viz:110
Mr. Suarez. So there is no need to express it here.
"xxx
Fr. Bernas. There is no need. It was that way before. The only
innovation made by the 1973 Constitution was to make that Mr. Aquino. On another point, if an impeachment proceeding
explicit and to add other things. has been filed against the President, for example, and the
President resigns before judgement of conviction has been
Mr. Suarez. On that understanding, I will not press for any rendered by the impeachment court or by the body, how does
more query, Madam President. it affect the impeachment proceeding? Will it be necessarily
dropped?
 State and the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such but
Mr. Romulo. If we decide the purpose of impeachment to stands in the same footing as any trespasser.114
remove one from office, then his resignation would render the
case moot and academic. However, as the provision says, the Indeed, critical reading of current literature on executive
criminal and civil aspects of it may continue in the ordinary immunity will reveal a judicial disinclination to expand the
courts." privilege especially when it impedes the search for truth or
impairs the vindication of a right. In the 1974 case of US v.
This is in accord with our ruling In Re: Saturnino Bermudez111 Nixon,115 US President Richard Nixon, a sitting President,
that 'incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or from being was subpoenaed to produce certain recordings and
brought to court during the period of their incumbency and documents relating to his conversations with aids and
tenure" but not beyond. Considering the peculiar circumstance advisers. Seven advisers of President Nixon's associates were
that the impeachment process against the petitioner has been facing charges of conspiracy to obstruct Justice and other
aborted and thereafter he lost the presidency, petitioner offenses, which were committed in a burglary of the
Estrada cannot demand as a condition sine qua non to his Democratic National Headquarters in Washington's Watergate
criminal prosecution before the Ombudsman that he be Hotel during the 972 presidential campaign. President Nixon
convicted in the impeachment proceedings. His reliance on the himself was named an unindicted co-conspirator. President
case of Lecaroz vs. Sandiganbayan112 and related cases113 Nixon moved to quash the subpoena on the ground, among
are inapropos for they have a different factual milieu. others, that the President was not subject to judicial process
and that he should first be impeached and removed from office
We now come to the scope of immunity that can be claimed by before he could be made amenable to judicial proceedings.
petitioner as a non-sitting President. The cases filed against The claim was rejected by the US Supreme Court. It
petitioner Estrada are criminal in character. They involve concluded that "when the ground for asserting privilege as to
plunder, bribery and graft and corruption. By no stretch of the subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is
imagination can these crimes, especially plunder which carries based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it
the death penalty, be covered by the alleged mantle of cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process
immunity of a non-sitting president. Petitioner cannot cite any of law in the fair administration of criminal justice." In the 1982
decision of this Court licensing the President to commit case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald,116 the US Supreme Court further
criminal acts and wrapping him with post-tenure immunity from held that the immunity of the president from civil damages
liability. It will be anomalous to hold that immunity is an covers only "official acts." Recently, the US Supreme Court
inoculation from liability for unlawful acts and conditions. The had the occasion to reiterate this doctrine in the case of
rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the Clinton v. Jones117 where it held that the US President's
immunity from suits for money damages arising out of their Estrada should be enjoined due to prejudicial publicity
official acts is inapplicable to unofficial conduct.
Petitioner also contends that the respondent Ombudsman
There are more reasons not to be sympathetic to appeals to should be stopped from conducting the investigation of the
stretch the scope of executive immunity in our jurisdiction. One cases filed against him due to the barrage of prejudicial
of the great themes of the 1987 Constitution is that a public publicity on his guilt. He submits that the respondent
office is a public trust.118 It declared as a state policy that "the Ombudsman has developed bias and is all set file the criminal
State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service cases violation of his right to due process.
and take positive and effective measures against graft and
corruptio."119 it ordained that "public officers and employees There are two (2) principal legal and philosophical schools of
must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them thought on how to deal with the rain of unrestrained publicity
with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency act during the investigation and trial of high profile cases.125 The
with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives."120 It set British approach the problem with the presumption that
the rule that 'the right of the State to recover properties publicity will prejudice a jury. Thus, English courts readily stay
unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, from them and stop criminal trials when the right of an accused to fair trial
or from their nominees or transferees, shall not be barred by suffers a threat.126 The American approach is different. US
prescription, latches or estoppel."121 It maintained the courts assume a skeptical approach about the potential effect
Sandiganbayan as an anti-graft court.122 It created the office of pervasive publicity on the right of an accused to a fair trial.
of the Ombudsman and endowed it with enormous powers, They have developed different strains of tests to resolve this
among which is to "investigate on its own, or on complaint by issue, i.e., substantial; probability of irreparable harm, strong
any person, any act or omission of any public official, likelihood, clear and present danger, etc.
employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust improper or inefficient."123 The This is not the first time the issue of trial by publicity has been
Office of the Ombudsman was also given fiscal autonomy.124 raised in this Court to stop the trials or annul convictions in
These constitutional policies will be devalued if we sustain high profile criminal cases.127 In People vs. Teehankee,
petitioner's claim that a non-sitting president enjoys immunity Jr.,128 later reiterated in the case of Larranaga vs. court of
from suit for criminal acts committed during his incumbency. Appeals, et al.,129 we laid down the doctrine that:

V "We cannot sustain appellant's claim that he was denied the

right to impartial trial due to prejudicial publicity. It is true that
Whether or not the prosecution of petitioner the print and broadcast media gave the case at bar pervasive
publicity, just like all high profile and high stake criminal trials.
Then and now, we rule that the right of an accused to a fair Martelino, et al. v. Alejandro, et al., we rejected this standard of
trial is not incompatible to a free press. To be sure, responsible possibility of prejudice and adopted the test of actual prejudice
reporting enhances accused's right to a fair trial for, as well as we ruled that to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity,
pointed out, a responsible press has always been regarded as there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been
the criminal field xxx. The press does not simply publish unduly influenced, not simply that they might be, by the
information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of barrage of publicity. In the case at a bar, the records do not
justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial show that the trial judge developed actual bias against
processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism. appellants as a consequence of the extensive media coverage
of the pre-trial and trial of his case. The totality of
Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an circumstances of the case does not prove that the trial judge
accused to fair trial. The mere fact that the trial of appellant acquired a fixed opinion as a result of prejudicial publicity,
was given a day-to-day, gavel-to-gavel coverage does not by which is incapable of change even by evidence presented
itself prove that the publicity so permeated the mind of the trial during the trial. Appellant has the burden to prove this actual
judge and impaired his impartiality. For one, it is impossible to bias and he has not discharged the burden.'
seal the minds of members of the bench from pre-trial and
other off-court publicity of sensational criminal cases. The We expounded further on this doctrine in the subsequent case
state of the art of our communication system brings news as of Webb vs. Hon. Raul de Leon, etc.130 and its companion
they happen straight to our breakfast tables and right to our cases, viz:
bedrooms. These news form part of our everyday menu of the
facts and fictions of life. For another, our idea of a fair and "Again petitioners raise the effect of prejudicial publicity on
impartial judge is not that of a hermit who is out of touch with their right to due process while undergoing preliminary
the world. We have not installed the jury system whose investigation. We find no procedural impediment to its early
members are overly protected from publicity lest they lose invocation considering the substantial risk to their liberty while
there impartially. xxx xxx xxx. Our judges are learned in the undergoing a preliminary investigation.
law and trained to disregard off-court evidence and on-camera
performances of parties to litigation. Their mere exposure to xxx
publications and publicity stunts does not per se fatally infect
their impartiality. The democratic settings, media coverage of trials of
sensational cases cannot be avoided and oftentimes, its
At best, appellant can only conjure possibility of prejudice on excessiveness has been aggravated by kinetic developments
the part of the trial judge due to the barrage of publicity that in the telecommunications industry. For sure, few cases can
characterized the investigation and trial of the case. In match the high volume and high velocity of publicity that
attended the preliminary investigation of the case at bar. Our openness inheres in the very nature of a criminal trial under
daily diet of facts and fiction about the case continues this Nation's system of justice, Cf., e,g., Levine v. United
unabated even today. Commentators still bombard the public States, 362 US 610, 4 L Ed 2d 989, 80 S Ct 1038.
with views not too many of which are sober and sublime. The freedoms of speech. Press and assembly, expressly
Indeed, even the principal actors in the case – the NBI, the guaranteed by the First Amendment, share a common core
respondents, their lawyers and their sympathizers have purpose of assuring freedom of communication on matters
participated in this media blitz. The possibility of media abuses relating to the functioning of government. In guaranteeing
and their threat to a fair trial notwithstanding, criminal trials freedom such as those of speech and press, the First
cannot be completely closed to the press and public. In the Amendment can be read as protecting the right of everyone to
seminal case of Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, it was attend trials so as give meaning to those explicit guarantees;
the First Amendment right to receive information and ideas
xxx means, in the context of trials, that the guarantees of speech
and press, standing alone, prohibit government from
The historical evidence of the evolution of the criminal trial in summarily closing courtroom doors which had long been open
Anglo-American justice demonstrates conclusively that at the to the public at the time the First Amendment was adopted.
time this Nation's organic laws were adopted, criminal trials Moreover, the right of assembly is also relevant, having been
both here and in England had long been presumptively open, regarded not only as an independent right but also as a
thus giving assurance that the proceedings were conducted catalyst to augment the free exercise of the other First
fairly to all concerned and discouraging perjury, the Amendment rights with which the draftsmen deliberately linked
misconduct of participants, or decisions based on secret bias it. A trial courtroom is a public place where the people
or partiality. In addition, the significant community therapeutic generally and representatives of the media have a right to be
value of public trials was recognized when a shocking crime present, and where their presence historically has been
occurs a community reaction of outrage and public protest thought to enhance the integrity and quality of what takes
often follows, and thereafter the open processes of justice place.
serve an important prophylactic purpose, providing an outlet Even though the Constitution contains no provision which be
for community concern, hostility and emotion. To work its terms guarantees to the public the right to attend criminal
effectively, it is important that society's criminal process satisfy trials, various fundamental rights, not expressly guaranteed,
the appearance of justice,' Offutt v. United States, 348 US 11, have been recognized as indispensable to the enjoyment of
14, 99 L ED 11, 75 S Ct 11, which can best be provided by enumerated rights. The right to attend criminal trial is implicit in
allowing people to observe such process. From this unbroken, the guarantees of the First Amendment: without the freedom to
uncontradicted history, supported by reasons as valid today as attend such trials, which people have exercised for centuries,
in centuries past, it must be concluded that a presumption of
important aspects of freedom of speech and of the press be Applying the above ruling, we hold that there is not enough
eviscerated. evidence to warrant this Court to enjoin the preliminary
Be that as it may, we recognize that pervasive and prejudicial investigation of the petitioner by the respondent Ombudsman.
publicity under certain circumstances can deprive an accused Petitioner needs to offer more than hostile headlines to
of his due process right to fair trial. Thus, in Martelino, et al. vs. discharge his burden of proof.131 He needs to show more
Alejandro, et al., we held that to warrant a finding of prejudicial weighty social science evidence to successfully prove the
publicity there must be allegation and proof that the judges impaired capacity of a judge to render a bias-free decision.
have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be, by Well to note, the cases against the petitioner are still
the barrage of publicity. In the case at bar, we find nothing in undergoing preliminary investigation by a special panel of
the records that will prove that the tone and content of the prosecutors in the office of the respondent Ombudsman. No
publicity that attended the investigation of petitioners fatally allegation whatsoever has been made by the petitioner that
infected the fairness and impartiality of the DOJ Panel. the minds of the members of this special panel have already
Petitioners cannot just rely on the subliminal effects of publicity been infected by bias because of the pervasive prejudicial
on the sense of fairness of the DOJ Panel, for these are publicity against him. Indeed, the special panel has yet to
basically unbeknown and beyond knowing. To be sure, the come out with its findings and the Court cannot second guess
DOJ Panel is composed of an Assistant Chief State whether its recommendation will be unfavorable to the
Prosecutor and Senior State Prosecutors. Their long petitioner.1âwphi1.nêt
experience in criminal investigation is a factor to consider in
determining whether they can easily be blinded by the klieg The records show that petitioner has instead charged
lights of publicity. Indeed, their 26-page Resolution carries no respondent Ombudsman himself with bias. To quote
indubitable indicia of bias for it does not appear that they petitioner's submission, the respondent Ombudsman "has
considered any extra-record evidence except evidence been influenced by the barrage of slanted news reports, and
properly adduced by the parties. The length of time the he has buckled to the threats and pressures directed at him by
investigation was conducted despite its summary nature and the mobs."132 News reports have also been quoted to
the generosity with which they accommodated the discovery establish that the respondent Ombudsman has already
motions of petitioners speak well of their fairness. At no prejudged the cases of the petitioner133 and it is postulated
instance, we note, did petitioners seek the disqualification of that the prosecutors investigating the petitioner will be
any member of the DOJ Panel on the ground of bias resulting influenced by this bias of their superior.
from their bombardment of prejudicial publicity." (emphasis
supplied) Again, we hold that the evidence proffered by the petitioner is
insubstantial. The accuracy of the news reports referred to by
the petitioner cannot be the subject of judicial notice by this
Court especially in light of the denials of the respondent to do justice and less to prosecute. His is the obligation to
Ombudsman as to his alleged prejudice and the presumption insure that the preliminary investigation of the petitioner shall
of good faith and regularity in the performance of official duty have a circus-free atmosphere. He has to provide the restraint
to which he is entitled. Nor can we adopt the theory of against what Lord Bryce calls "the impatient vehemence of the
derivative prejudice of petitioner, i.e., that the prejudice of majority." Rights in a democracy are not decided by the mob
respondent Ombudsman flows to his subordinates. In truth, whose judgment is dictated by rage and not by reason. Nor
our Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, give investigation are rights necessarily resolved by the power of number for in a
prosecutors the independence to make their own findings and democracy, the dogmatism of the majority is not and should
recommendations albeit they are reviewable by their never be the definition of the rule of law. If democracy has
superiors.134 They can be reversed but they can not be proved to be the best form of government, it is because it has
compelled cases which they believe deserve dismissal. In respected the right of the minority to convince the majority that
other words, investigating prosecutors should not be treated it is wrong. Tolerance of multiformity of thoughts, however
like unthinking slot machines. Moreover, if the respondent offensive they may be, is the key to man's progress from the
Ombudsman resolves to file the cases against the petitioner cave to civilization. Let us not throw away that key just to
and the latter believes that the findings of probable cause pander to some people's prejudice.
against him is the result of bias, he still has the remedy of
assailing it before the proper court. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petitions of Joseph Ejercito Estrada
challenging the respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as the de
VI. jure 14th President of the Republic are DISMISSED.

Epilogue SO ORDERED.

A word of caution to the "hooting throng." The cases against Footnotes

the petitioner will now acquire a different dimension and then
move to a new stage - - - the Office of the Ombudsman. 1 Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI), October 5, 2000, pp. A1 and
Predictably, the call from the majority for instant justice will hit A17.
a higher decibel while the gnashing of teeth of the minority will
be more threatening. It is the sacred duty of the respondent 2 PDI, October 6, 2000, pp. A1 and A18.
Ombudsman to balance the right of the State to prosecute the
guilty and the right of an accused to a fair investigation and 3 Ibid., October 12, 2000, pp. A1 and A17.
trial which has been categorized as the "most fundamental of
all freedoms."135 To be sure, the duty of a prosecutor is more 4 Ibid., October 14, 2000, p. A1.
 Osmeña, Aquino-Oreta, Coseteng, Enrile, Honasan, Jaworski,
5 Ibid., October 18, 2000, p. A1. Revilla, Sotto III and Tatad.

6 Ibid., October 13, 2000, pp. A1 and A21. 18 Philippine Star, January 17, 2001, p. 1.

7 Ibid., October 26, 2000, p. A1. 19 Ibid., January 18, 2001, p. 4.

8 Ibid., November 2, 2000, p. A1. 20 Ibid., p. 1.

9 Ibid., November 3, 2000, p. A1. 21 Ibid., January 19, 2001, pp. 1 and 8.

10 Ibid., November 4, 2000, p. A1. 22 "Erap's Final Hours Told" by Edgardo Angara, (hereinafter
referred to as "Angara Diary"), PDI, February 4, 2001, p. A16.
11 The complaint for impeachment was based on the following
grounds: bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, 23 Philippine Star, January 20, 2001, p. 4.
and culpable violation of the Constitution.
24 PDI, February 4, 2001, p. A16.
12 Ibid., November 14, 2000, p. A1.
25 Philippine Star, January 20, 2001, pp. 1 and 11.
13 Ibid., November 21, 2000, p. A1.
26 Ibid., January 20, 2001, p. 3.
14 Ibid., December 8, 2000, p. A1.
27 PDI, February 5, 2001, pp. A1 and A6.
15 Ibid., December 23, 2000, pp. A1 and A19.
28 Philippine Star, January 21, 2001, p. 1.
16 Ibid., January 12, 2001, p. A1.
29 PDI, February 6, 2001, p. A12.
17 Those who voted "yes" to open the envelope were:
Senators Pimentel, Guingona, Drilon, Cayetano, Roco, 30 Annex A, DOJ-OSG, Joint Comment; Rollo, G.R. Nos.
Legarda, Magsaysay, Flavier, Biazon, Osmeña III. Those who 146710-15, p. 288.
vote "no" were Senators Ople, Defensor-Santiago, John
31 Annex A-1, Petition, G.R. Nos. 146710-15; Rollo, p. 34.
 46 PDI, February 10, 2001, p. A2.
32 Ibid.
47 Annex G, id.; ibid., p. 299.
33 Annex A, Petition, G.R. Nos. 146710-15; Rollo, p. 33.
48 PDI, February 8, 2001, p. A19.
34 Philippine Star, January 21, 2001, p. 1; January 23, 2001,
pp. 1 and 4; January 24, 2001, p. 3; PDI, January 25, 2001, 49 Philippine Star, February 3, 2001, p. 4.
pp. A1 and A15.
50 "Acceptance of Gloria is Nationwide," Mahar Mangahas,
35 Philippine Star, January 24, 2001, p. 1. Manila Standard, February 16, 2001, p. 14.

36 PDI, January 25, 2001, p. 1. 51 See The Chief Justice's Extended Explanation for his
Voluntary Inhibition; Rollo, GR Nos. 146710-15, pp. 525-527.
37 Ibid., p. 2.
52 See Letter of Inhibition of Associate Justice Panganiban;
38 Annex C, DOJ-OSG Joint Comment; Rollo, GR Nos. Rollo, GR No. 146738, pp.120-125.
146710-15, p. 290.
53 Rollo, G.R. No. 146738, p. 134.
39 Annex D, id; ibid., p. 292.
54 Leonard de Vera and Dennis Funa; see their Memorandum,
40 PDI, January 27, 2001, p. 1. pp. 16-27; Rollo, GR Nos. 146710-15, Vol. III, pp. 809-820.

41 PDI, February 13, 2001, p. A2. 55 Gunther and Sullivan, Constitutional law, 13th ed., pp.
45-46.
42 Philippine Star, February 13, 2001, p. A2.
56 369 US 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L. ed 2d 663, 686 (1962).
43 Annex E, id.; ibid., p. 295.
57 See e.g., Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Hon. Zamora,
44 PDI, February 8, 2001, pp. A1 & A19. et al., GR No. 141284, 15 August 2000; Miranda v. Aguirre,
314 SCRA 603 (1999); Santiago v. Guingona, 298 SCRA 756
45 Annex F, id.; ibid., p. 297. (1998); Tatad v. Secretary of the Department of Energy, 281
SCRA 330 (1997); Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668
(1989); Gonzales v. COMELEC, 129 Phil 7 (1967); Mabanag v.
Lopez Vito, 78 Phil 1 (1947); Avelino v. Cuenco 83 Phil. 17 So help me God.
(1949); Vera v. Avelino, 77 Phil 192 (1946); Alejandrino v.
Quezon, 46 Phil 83 (1942). (Annex I, Comment of the Ombudsman; Rollo, GR Nos.
146710-15, Vol. II, p. 332)
58 103 Phil 1051, 1068 (1957).
65 See "Filipinas Despues de Cien Años" (The Philippines a
59 Section 1, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution. Century Hence), p. 62.

60 Note that the early treatises on Constitutional Law are 66 The guaranty was taken from Amendment I of the US
discourses on limitations of power typical of which is, Cooley's Constitution which provides: "Congress shall make no law
Constitutional Limitations. respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
61 Joint Resolution, Lawyers League for a Better Philippines press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
and/or Oliver A. Lozano v. Pres. Corazon C. Aquino, et al., GR petition the Government for a redress of grievance."
No. 73748; People's Crusade for Supremacy of the
Constitution, etc. v. Mrs. Cory Aquino, et al., GR No. 73972; 67 See section 8, Article IV.
and Councilor Clifton U. Ganay v. Corazon C. Aquino, et al.,
GR No. 73990, May 22, 1986. 68 See section 9, Article IV.

62 Letter of Association Justice Reynato S. Puno, 210 SCRA 69 Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression, 1970 ed.,
597 [1992]. p. 6, et seq.

63 Proclamation No. 3 (1986). 70 Ibid. See also concurring opinion of Justice Branders in
Whitney v. California (74 US 357, 375-76) where he said "…
64 It states: the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people …"

I, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Vice President of the Philippines, 71 307 US 496 (1939).

do solemnly swear that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill
my duties as President o the Philippines, preserve and defend 72 Chafee, Jr., Free Speech in the United States, 1946 ed.,
its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and pp. 413-415, 421.
consecrate myself to the service of the nation.
73 260 SCRA 798 (1996). 87 Ibid., p. A-1.

74 Section 1, Article II of the 1987 Constitution reads: 88 Ibid.

"The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. 89 PDI, February 5, 2001, P. A6.
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them." 90 PDI, February 6, 2001, p. A1.

75 Infra at 26. 91 In the Angara diary which appeared in the PDI issue of
February 5, 2001, Secretary Angara stated that the letter came
76 Infra at 41. from Asst. Secretary Boying Remulla; that he and Political
Adviser Banayo opposed it; and that PMS head Macel
77 1 Cranch (5 US) 137, 2 L ed 60 (1803). Fernandez believed that the petitioner would not sign the
letter.
78 Gonzales v. Hernandez, 2 SCRA 228 (1961).
92 Congressional Record, 4th Congress, 2nd Session, March
79 See its February 4, 5, and 6, 2001 issues. 4, 1959, pp. 603-604.

80 PDI, February 4, 2001, p. A1. 93 Id., May 9, 1959, p. 1988

81 Ibid. 94 Section 18 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides:

"No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a
82 Ibid. punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted."
83 Ibid.
95 Reply Memorandum, p. 3; Rollo, GR Nos. 146710-15, Vol.
84 Ibid. IV.

85 Ibid. 96 House Resolution No. 175, 11th Congress, 3rd Session

(2001), reads:
86 PDI, February 5, 2001, p. A1.
"RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE FULL SUPPORT OF THE Speaker
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE ADMINISTRATION
OF HER EXCELLENCY, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, This Resolution was adopted by the House of Representatives
PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES on January 24, 2001.

WHEREAS, on January 20, 2001, Vice President Gloria (Sgd.) ROBERTO P. NAZARENO
Macapagal-Arroyo was sworn in as the 14th President of the
Philippines; Secretary General"

WHEREAS, her ascension to the highest office of the land 97 11th Congress, 3rd Session (2001).
under the dictum, "the voice of the people is the voice of God"
establishes the basis of her mandate on integrity and morality 98 11th Congress, 3rd Session (2001).
in government;
99 Annex 2, Comment of Private Respondents De Vera, et al.;
WHEREAS, the House of Representatives joins the church, Rollo, GR No. 146710-15, Vol. II, p. 231.
youth, labor and business sectors in fully supporting the
President's strong determination to succeed; 100 11th Congress, 3rd Session (2001).

WHEREAS, the House of Representatives is likewise one with 101 11th Congress, 3rd Session (2001).
the people in supporting President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's
call to start the healing and cleansing process for a divided 102 103 Phil 1051, 1067 (1957).
nation in order to 'build an edifice of peace, progress and
economic stability' for the country: Now, therefore, be it 103 Baker vs. Carr, supra at 686 headnote 29.

Resolved by the House of Representatives, To express its full 104 16 Phil 534 (1910).
support to the administration of Her Excellency, Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, 14th President of the Philippines. 105 The logical basis for executive immunity from suit was
originally founded upon the idea that the "King can do no
Adopted, wrong". [R.J. Gray, Private Wrongs of Public Servants, 47 Cal.
L. Rev., 303 (1959)]. The concept thrived at the time of
(Sgd.) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR. absolute monarchies in medieval England when it was
generally accepted that the seat of sovereignty and
governmental power resides in the throne. During that offset by the losses from diminished zeal [Agabin, op cit., at
historical, juncture, it was believed that allowing the King to be 121.]. Without immunity, the president would be disinclined to
sued in his courts was a contradiction to the sovereignty of the exercise decision-making functions in a manner that might
King. detrimentally affect an individual or group of individuals. [See
H. Schechter, Immunity of Presidential Aides from Criminal
With the development of democratic thoughts and institutions, Prosecution, 57 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 779 (1989)].
this kind of rationalization eventually lost its moral force. In the
United States, for example, the common law maxim regarding 106 62 Phil. L.J. 113 (1987).
the King's infallibility had limited reception among the framers
of the Constitution. [J. Long, How to Sue the President: A 107 See Bulletin Today, August 16, 1984, p. 1; December 18,
Proposal for Legislation Establishing the Extent of Presidential 1984, p. 7.
Immunity, 30 Val. U. L. Rev. 283 (1995)]. Still, the doctrine of
presidential immunity found its way of surviving in modern 108 Records of the Constitutional Commission of 1986, Vol. II,
political times, retaining both its relevance and vitality. The Records, p. 423, July 29, 1986.
privilege, however, is now justified for different reasons. First,
the doctrine is rooted in the constitutional tradition of 109 Supra at 47.
separation of powers and supported by history. [Nixon v.
Fitzgerald, 451 U. S. 731 (1982)]. The separation of powers 110 Records of Constitutional Commission, Vol. II, July 28,
principle is viewed as demanding the executive's 1986, p. 355.
independence from the judiciary, so that the President should
not be subject to the judiciary's whim. Second, by reason of 111 145 SCRA 160 (1986).
public convenience, the grant is to assure the exercise of
presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance or 112 128 SCRA 324 (1984).
distraction, considering that the Chief Executive is a job that,
aside from requiring all of the office-holder's time, also 113 In Re: Raul Gonzalez, 160 SCRA 771 (1988); Cuenco v.
demands undivided attention. [Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA Fernan, 158 SCRA 29 (1988); and Jarque v. Desierto, A.C.
393 (1988)]. Otherwise, the time and substance of the chief No. 4509, 250 SCRA xi-xiv (1995).,
executive will be spent on wrangling litigation, disrespect upon
his person will be generated, and distrust in the government 114 Wallace v. Board of Education, 280 Ala. 635, 197 So 2d
will soon follow. [Forbes v. Chouco Tiaco, 16 Phil. 534 (1910)]. 428 (1967).
Third, on grounds of public policy, it was recognized that the
gains from discouraging official excesses might be more than 115 418 US 683, 94 S. Ct. 3090, 41 L ed 1039 (1974).
116 457 US 731, 73 L ed. 349, 102 S Ct. 2690 (1982). 130 247 SCRA 652 (1995)

117 520 U.S. 681 (1997). 131 Extensive publicity did not result in the conviction of well
known personalities. E.g., OJ Simpson, John Mitchell, William
118 See section 1, Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution. Kennedy Smith and Imelda Marcos.

119 See section 27, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution. 132 Memorandum, pp. 29-30; Rollo, GR Nos. 146710-15, Vol.
III, pp. 572-573.
120 See, section 1, Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution.
134 See section 4, Rule 112.
121 See section 15, Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution.
135 Estes v. Texas, 381 US 532, 540 (1965).
122 See section 4, Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution.

123 See section 13 (1), Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution. CONCURRING OPINION

124 See section 14, Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution. VITUG, J.:

125 See Brandwood, Notes: "You Say 'Fair Trial' and I say This nation has a great and rich history authored by its people.
'Free Press:' British and American Approaches to Protecting The EDSA Revolution of 2001 could have been one innocuous
Defendants' Rights in High Profile Trials," NYU Law Rev., Vol. phenomenon buried in the pages of our history but for its
75, No. 5, pp. 1412-1451 (November 2000). critical dimensions. Now, EDSA 2 would be far from being just
another event in our annals. To this day, it is asked – Is Mr.
126 Id., p. 1417. Joseph Ejercito Estrada still the President of the Republic of
the Philippines?
127 See e.g., Martelino, et al. v. Alejandro, et. al., 32 SCRA
106 (1970); People v. Teehankee, 249 SCRA 54 (1995) To retort, one is to trace the events that led to the denouement
of the incumbency of Mr. Joseph Ejercito Estrada. Mr. Estrada,
128 249 SCRA 54 (1955) herein petitioner, was elected to office by not less than 10
million Filipinos in the elections of May 1998, served well over
129 287 SCRA 581 at pp. 596-597 (1998) two years until January 2001. Formally impeached by the
Lower House of Representatives for cases of Graft and
Corruption, Bribery, Betrayal of Public Trust and Culpable "The undersigned respectfully informs this Honorable Court
violation of the Constitution, he was tried by the Senate. The that Joseph Ejercito Estrada is permanently incapable of
Impeachment Tribunal was tasked to decide on the fate of Mr. performing the duties of his office resulting in his permanent
Estrada- if convicted, he would be removed from office and disability to govern the serve his unexpired term. Almost all of
face prosecution with the regular courts or, if acquitted, he his cabinet members have resigned and the Philippine
would remain in office. An evidence, however, presented by National police have withdrawn their support for Joseph
the prosecution tagged as the "second envelope" would have Ejercito Estrada. Civil society has likewise refused to
it differently. The denial by the impeachment court of the pleas recognize him as President.
to have the dreaded envelope opened promptly put the trial
into a halt. Within hours after the controversial Senate "In view of this, I am assuming the position of the president of
decision, an angered people trooped again to the site of the the Republic of the Philippines. Accordingly, I would like to
previous uprising in 1986 that toppled the 20-year rule of take my oath as President of the republic before the Honorable
former President Ferdinand E. Marcos - EDSA. Arriving in Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide. Jr., today, 20 January 2001,
trickles, the motley gathering swelled to an estimated million 12:00 noon at EDSA Shrine, Quezon City, Metro Manila.
on the fourth day, with several hundreds more nearing
Mendiola reportedly poised to storm Malacañang. "May I have the honor to invite the members of the Honorable
Court to attend the oath-taking."
In the morning of 20 January 2001, the people waited for Erap
to step down and to heed the call for him to resign. At this The tribunal, aware of the grave national crisis which had the
time, Estrada was a picture of a man, elected into the marks of yet intensifying into possible catastrophic proportion,
Presidency, but beleaguered by solitude-empty of the support agreed to honor the request: Therefore, the Court, cognizant
by the military and the police, abandoned most of his cabinet that it had to keep its doors open, had to help assure that the
members, and with hardly any firm succor from constituents. judicial process was seen to be functioning. As the hours
And despite the alleged popularity that brought him to power, passed, however, the extremely volatile situation was getting
mass sentiment now appeared to be for his immediate ouster. more precarious by the minute, and the combustible
ingredients were all but ready to ignite. The country was faced
With this capsule, the constitutional successor of Estrada in with a phenomenon --- the phenomenon of a people, who, in
the person of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, then incumbent the exercise of sovereignty perhaps too limitless to be
Vice-President, took the cue and requested the Chief Justice explicitly contained and constrained by the limited words and
her oath-taking. In a letter, sent through "fax" at about half past phrases of the constitution, directly sought to remove their
seven o'clock in the morning of 20 January 2001, read: president from office. On that morning of the 20th of January,
the his tribunal was confronted with a dilemma ----- should it momentous role in yet another "bloodless revolution." The
choose a literal and narrow view of the constitution, invoke the Court could not have remained placid amidst the worsening
rule of strict law, and exercise its characteristics reticence? Or situation at the time. It could not in conscience allow the
was it propitious for it to itself take a hand? The first was high-strung emotions and passions of EDSA to reach the
fraught with danger and evidently too risky to accept. The gates of Malacañang. The military and police defections
second could very well help avert imminent bloodshed. Given created stigma that could not be left unguarded by a vacuum
the realities; the Court was left hardly with choice. in the presidency. The danger was simply overwhelming. The
Paradoxically, the first option would almost certainly imperil the extra-ordinariness of the reality called for an extra-ordinary
Constitution, the second could save it. The confirmatory solution. The court has chosen to prevent rather than cure an
resolution was issued following the en banc session of the enigma incapable of being recoiled.
Court on 22 January 2001; it read:
The alarming social unrest ceased as the emergence of a new
"A.M. No. 01-1-05-SC- In re: Request of Vice-President Gloria leadership so unfolded. The promise of healing the battered
Macapagal-Arroyo to take her Oath of Office as President of nation engulfed the spirit but it was not to last. Questions were
the Philippines before the Chief Justice- Acting on the urgent raised on the legitimacy of Mme. Macapagal-Arroyo's
request of Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to be assumption to office. Mr. Estrada would insist that he was still
sworn in as President of the Republic of the Philippines, President and that Mme. Macapagal-Arroyo took over only in
addressed to the Chief Justice and confirmed letter to the an acting capacity.
Court, dated January 20, 2001, which request was treated as
an administrative matter, the Court resolved unanimously to So it is argued, Mr. Estrada remains to be the President
CONFIRM the authority given by the twelve (12) members of because under the 1987 Constitution, the Vice-President may
the Court then present to the Chief justice on January 20, assume the presidency only in its explicitly prescribed
2001 to administer the oath of office to Vice President Gloria instances; to wit, firstly, in case of death, permanent disability,
Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Philippines, at noon of removal from office, or resignation of the President,1secondly,
January 20, 2001. when the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the
House of representatives his written declaration that he is
"This resolution is without prejudice to the disposition of any unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, 2 and
justiceable case which may be filed by a proper party." thirdly, when a majority of all the members of the cabinet
transmit to the President and to the speaker of the House of
At high noon on the 20th January 2001, Gloria representatives their written declaration that the President is
Macapagal-Arroyo was sworn in as the 14th President of the unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, 3 the
Republic of the Philippines. EDSA, once again, had its latter two grounds being culled as the "disability."
 Mr. Estrada imports that he did not resign from the presidency
Mr. Estrada believes that he cannot be considered to have because the word "resignation" has not once been embodied
relinquished his office for none of the above situations have in his letters or said in his statements. I am unable to oblige.
occurred. The conditions for constitutional succession have The contemporary acts of Estrada during those four critical
not been met. He states that he has merely been "temporarily days of January are evident of his intention to relinquish his
incapacitated" to discharge his duties, and he invokes his office. Scarcity of words may not easily cloak reality and hide
letters to both Chambers of the Congress consistent with true intentions. Crippled to discharge his duties, the embattled
section 11 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. The twin President acceded to have negotiations conducted for a
letters, dated 20 January 2001, to the two houses read: smooth transition of power. The belated proposals of the
President to have the impeachment Court allow the opening of
"By virtue of the provisions of Section 11, Article VII of the the controversial envelope and to postpone his resignation
Constitution, I am hereby transmitting this declaration that I am until 24 January 2001 were both rejected. On the morning of
unable to exercise the powers and duties of my office. By 20 January 2001, the President sent to congress the following
operation of law and the Constitution, the Vice-President shall letter ---
be acting President."

"By virtue of the provisions of Section II, Article VII, of the

Truly, the grounds raised in the petition are as dubitable as the Constitution, I am hereby transmitting this declaration that I am
petitioner's real motive in filling the case. unable to exercise the powers and duties of my office. By
operation of law and the Constitution, the vice-president shall
The pressing issue must now catapult to its end. be the acting president."

Resignation is an act of giving up or the act of an officer by Receipt of the letter by the Speaker of the lower house was
which he renounces his office indefinitely. In order to constitute placed at around eight o'clock in the morning but the Senate
a complete and operative act of resignation, the officer or president was said to have received a copy only on the
employee must show a clear intention to relinquish or evening of that day. Nor this Court turn a blind eye to the
surrender his position accompanied by an act of paralyzing events which left petitioner to helplessness and
relinquishment. Resignation implies, of the intention to inutility in office – not so much by the confluence of events that
surrender, renounce, relinquish the office. 4 forces him to step down the seat of power in a poignant and
teary farewell as the recognition of the will of the governed to
whom he owned allegiance. In his "valedictory message," he
wrote: Mr. Joseph Estrada invokes "temporary incapacity" under
Section 11, Article VII of the Constitution. This assertion is
"At twelve o'clock noon today, Vice President Gloria difficult to sustain since the temporary incapacity contemplated
Macapagal-Arroyo took her oath as President of the Republic clearly envisions those that are personal, either by physical or
of the Philippines. While along with many other legal minds of mental in nature, 7 and innate to the individual. If it were
our country, I have strong and serious doubts about the legality otherwise, when then would the disability last? Would it be
and constitutionality of her proclamation as President, I do not when the confluent causes which have brought about that
wish to be a factor that will prevent the restoration of unity and disability are completely set in reverse? Surely, the idea fails to
order in our civil society. register well to the simple mind.

"It is for this reason that I now leave Malacañang Palace, the Neither can it be implied that the takeover has installed a
seat of the presidency of this country, for the sake of peace revolutionary government. A revolutionary government is one
and in order to begin the healing process of our nation. I leave which has taken the seat of power by force or in defiance of
the palace of our people with gratitude for the opportunities the legal processes. Within the political context, a revolution is
given to me for service to our people. I will not shirk from any a complete overthrow of the established government.8 In its
future challenges that may come ahead in the same service of delimited concept, it is characterized often,9 albeit not
our country. always,10 by violence as a means and specificable range of
goals as ends. In contrast, EDSA 2 did not envision radical
"I call on all my supporters and followers to join me in the changes. The government structure has remained intact.
promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and Succession to the presidency has been by the duly-elected
solidarity. Vice-president of the Republic. The military and the police,
down the line, have felt to be so acting in obedience to their
"May the Almighty bless our country and our beloved people. mandate as the protector of the people.

"MABUHAY! Any revolution, whether it is violent or not, involves a radical

change. Huntington sees revolution as being "a rapid,
Abandonment of office is a species of resignation, 5 and it fundamental and violent domestic change in the dominant
connotes the giving up of the office although not attending by values and myths of society in its political institution, social
the formalities normally observed in resignation. Abandonment structure, leadership, government activity and policies.11 " The
may be effected by a positive act or can be the result of an distinguished A.J. Milne makes a differentiation between
omission, whether deliberate or not. 6 constitutional political action and a revolutionary political
action. A constitutional political action, according to him, is a
political within a legal framework and rests upon a moral
commitment to uphold the authority of law. A revolutionary More than just an eloquent piece of frozen document, the
political action, on the other hand, acknowledges no such Constitution should be deemed to be a living testament and
moral commitment. The latter is directly towards overthrowing memorial of the sovereign will of the people from whom all
the existing legal order and replacing it with something else.12 government authority emanates. Certainly, this fundamental
And what, one might ask, is the "legal order" referred to? It is statement is not without meaning. Nourished by time, it grows
an authoritative code of a polity comprising enacted rules, and copes with the changing milieu. The framers of the
along with those in the Constitution13 and concerns itself with constitution could not have anticipated all conditions that might
structures rather than personalities in the establishments. arise in the aftermath of events. A constitution does not deal in
Accordingly, structure would prefer to the different branches of details, but enunciates the general tenets that are intended to
the government and personalities would be the power-holders. apply to all facts that may come about but which can be
If determination would be made whether a specific legal order brought within its directions. 14 Behind its conciseness is its
is intact or not, what can be vital is not the change in the inclusiveness and its apertures overridingly lie, not fragmented
personalities but a change in the structure. but integrated and encompassing, its spirit and its intent. The
Constitution cannot be permitted to deteriorate into just a
petrified code of legal maxims and hand-tied to its restrictive
letters and wordings, rather than be the pulsating law that it is.
The ascension of Mme. Macapagal-Arroyo to the presidency Designed to be an enduring instrument, its interpretation is not
has resulted neither in the obligation of the legal order. The be confined to the conditions and outlook which prevail at the
constitutionally-established government structures, embracing time of its adoption15 instead, it must be given flexible to bring
various offices under the executive branch, of the judiciary, of it in accord with the vicissitudes of changing and advancing
the legislature, of the constitutional commissions and still other affairs of men.16 Technicalities and play of words cannot
entities, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the frustrate the inevitable because there is an immense difference
Philippine National Police and local governments as well, have between legalism and justice. If only to secure our democracy
all remained intact and functioning. and to keep the social order – technicalities must give away. It
has been said that the real essence of justice does not
An insistence that the events in January 2001 transgressed emanate from quibblings over patchwork legal technicality but
the letter of the Constitution is to ignore the basic tenet of proceeds from the spirit's gut consciousness of the dynamic
constitutionalism and to functionalize the clearly preponderant role as a brick in the ultimate development of social edifice.17
facts. Anything else defeats the spirit and intent of the Constitution
for which it is formulated and reduces its mandate to country must not grow oblivious to the innate perils of people
irrelevance and obscurity. power for no bond can be stretched far too much to its
breaking point. To abuse is to destroy that which we may hold
dear.

All told the installation of Mme. Macapagal-Arroyo perhaps 1 Section 8, Article VII, 1987 Constitution
came close to, but not quite, the revolutionary government that
we know. The new government, now undoubtedly in effective 2 Section 11, 1st paragraph, Article VII, 1987 Constitution
control of the entire country, domestically and internationally
recognized to be legitimate, acknowledging a previous 3 Ibid., 2nd paragraph
pronouncement of the court, 18 is a de jure government both
in fact and in law. The basic structures, the principles, the 4 Ortiz vs. Comelec, 162 SCRA 812
directions, the intent and the spirit of the 1987 Constitution
have been saved and preserved. Inevitably, Gloria 5 Sangguniang Bayan ng San Andres vs. Court of Appeals,
Macapagal-Arroyo is the President, not merely an Acting G.R. No. 11883, 16 January 1998
President, of the Republic of the Philippines.
6 Cruz, Carlos L., The Law on Public Officers, p. 174, 1997
A reminder of an elder to the youth. After two non-violent Edition
civilian uprising within just a short span of years between
them, it might be said that popular mass action is fast 7 "Mr. SUAREZ. xxx
becoming an institutionalized enterprise. Should the streets
now be the venue for the exercise of popular democracy? "May we now go to Section 11, page 5. This refers to the
Where does one draw the line between the rule of law and the President's written declaration of inability to discharge the
rule of the mob, or between "People Power" and "Anarchy?" If, powers and duties of the Office of the President. Can this
as the sole justification for its being, the basis of the Arroyo written declaration to be done for and in behalf of the
presidency lies alone on those who were at EDSA, then it President if, for example, the President is in no position to sign
does rest on loose and shifting sands and might tragically his name, like he suffers an accident and both his arms get to
open a Pandora's box more potent than the malaise it seeks to be amputated?
address. Conventional wisdom dictates the indispensable
need for great sobriety and extreme circumspection on our "Mr. REGALADO. We have not a situation like that even in the
part. In this kind of arena, let us be assumed that we are not jurisdiction from which we borrowed this provision, but we feel
overcome by senseless adventurism and opportunism. The that in remote situation that the Commissioner has cited in that
the President cannot make a written declaration, I suppose an
alternative would be considered wherein he can so expressly 9 Ibid.
manifest in an authentic manner what should be contained in a
written declaration. xxx 10 Ibid.

"Mr. SUAREZ. xxx I am thinking in terms of what happened to 11 Zarocin, Theories of Revolution in Contemporary
the President Wilson. Really, the physical disability of the Historiography, 88 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY
gentleman was never made clear to the historians. But
suppose a situation will happen in our country where the 12 Milne, Philosophy and Political Action, The Case of Civil
President may suffer coma and gets to be unconscious, which Rights, 21 Political Studies, 453, 456 (1973)
is practically a total inability to discharge the powers and
duties of his office, how can he submit a written declaration of 13 Fernandez, LAW and POLITY: Towards a System Concept
inability to perform the duties and functions of his office? of Legal validity, 46 Philippines Law Journal, 390-391 (1971)

"x x x x x x x x x 14 16 American Jurisprudence 2d.

"FR. BERNAS. Precisely. The second paragraph is to take 15 State ex rel Columbus vs. Keterrer, 127 Ohio St 483, 189
care of the Wilson situation. NE 252

"Mr. SUAREZ. I see. 16 John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. vs. Ford Motors Co., 322
Mich 209, 39 NW 2d 763
"Mr. REGALADO. The Wilson situation was in 1917. Precisely,
this twenty-fifth Amendment to the American Constitution as 17 Battles in the Supreme Court by Justice Artemio
adopted on February 10, 1967 prevent a recurrence of such Panganiban, pp. 103-104
situation. Besides, it was not only the Wilson matter. As I have
already mentioned here, they have had situations in the United 18 Lawyers' League for a Better Philippines vs. President
States, including those of President Garfield, President Wilson, Corazon C. Aquino, et al., G.R. No. 73748, May 22, 1986.
President Roosevelt and President Eisenhower."
CONCURRING OPINION
(11 RECORDS, PP. 421-423)
MENDOZA, J.:
8 Gitlow vs. Kiely, 44 F. 2d as cited in 46 CJS 1086
In issue in these cases is the legitimacy of the presidency of Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the
respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. In G.R. No. 146738, the legitimacy of the present government. All the eleven members
petition for quo warranto seeks a declaration that petitioner of this Court, as reorganized, have sworn to uphold the
Joseph Ejercito Estrada is the lawful President of the fundamental law of the Republic under her government.2
Philippines and that respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is
merely acting President on account o the former's temporary From the natural law point of view, the right of revolution has
disability. On the other hand, in G.R. Nos. 146710-15, the been defined as "an inherent right of a people to cast out their
petition seeks to prohibit respondent Ombudsman Aniano rulers, change their policy or effect radical reforms in their
Desierto from investigating charges of plunder, bribery, system of government or institutions by force or a general
malversation of public funds, and graft and corruption against uprising when the legal and constitutional methods of making
petitioner Estrada on the theory that, being still President, he is such change have proved inadequate or are so obstructed as
immune from suit. to be unavailable." It has been said that "the locus of positive
law-making power lies with the people of the state" and from
In both cases, a preliminary question is raised by respondents there is derived" the right of the people to abolish, to reform
whether the legitimacy of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's and to alter any existing form of government without regard to
presidency is a justiciable controversy. Respondent Gloria the existing constitution."3
Macapagal-Arroyo contends that the matter is not justiciable
because of "the virtual impossibility of undoing what has been But the Aquino government was a revolutionary government
done, namely, the transfer of constitutional power to Gloria which was established following the overthrow of the 1973
Macapagal-Arroyo as a result of the events starting from the Constitution. The legitimacy of a revolutionary government
expose of Ilocos Sur Governor Luis 'Chavit' Singson in cannot be the subject of judicial review. If a court decides the
October 2000."1 In support of this contention, respondent cites question at all qua court, it must necessarily affirm the
the following statements of this Court concerning the Aquino existence and authority of such government under which it is
government which it is alleged applies to her administration: exercising judicial power.4 As Melville Weston long ago put it,
"the men who were judges under the old regime and the men
. . . [T]he legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a who are called to be judges under the new have each to
justiciable matter. It belongs to the realm of politics where only decide as individuals what they are to do; and it may be that
the people of the Philippines are the judge. And the people they choose at grave peril with the factional outcome still
have made the judgment; they have accepted the government uncertain."5 This is what the Court did in Javellana v.
of President Corazon C. Aquino which is in effective control of Executive Secretary6 when it held that the question of validity
the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto of the 1973 Constitution was political and affirmed that it was
government but is in fact and law a de jure government. itself part of the new government. As the Court said in Occena
v. COMELEC7 and Mitra v. COMELEC,8 "[P]etitioners have as if by pre-arrangement, as the Court noted, and Avelino
come to the wrong forum. We sit as a Court duty-bound to suddenly adjourned the session and, followed by six senators,
uphold and apply that Constitution. . . . It is much too late in walked out of the session hall. The remaining senators then
the day to deny the force and applicability of the 1973 declared the position of President of the Senate vacant and
Constitution." elected Senator Mariano Jesus Cuenco acting president. The
question was whether respondent Cuenco had been validly
In contrast, these cases do not involve the legitimacy of a elected acting president of the Senate, considering that there
government. They only involve the legitimacy of the were only 12 senators (out of 24) present, one senator (Sen.
presidency of respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and the Confesor) being abroad while another one (Sen. Sotto) was ill
claim of respondents is precisely that Macapagal-Arroyo's in the hospital.
ascension to the presidency was in accordance with the
Constitution.9 Although in the beginning this Court refused to take
cognizance of a petition for quo warranto brought to determine
Indeed, if the government of respondent Gloria the rightful president of the Senate, among other things, in
Macapagal-Arroyo is a revolutionary one, all talk about the fact view of the political nature of the controversy, involving as it did
that it was brought about by succession due to resignation or an internal affair of a coequal branch of the government, in the
permanent disability of petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada is end this Court decided to intervene because of the national
useless. All that respondents have to show is that in the crisis which developed as a result of the unresolved question
contest for power Macapagal-Arroyo's government is the of presidency of the Senate. The situation justifying judicial
successful one and is now accepted by the people and intervention was described, thus:
recognized by the community of nations.
We can take judicial notice that legislative work has been at a
But that is not the case here. There was no revolution such as standstill; the normal and ordinary functioning of the Senate
that which took place in February 1986. There was no has been hampered by the non-attendance to sessions of
overthrow of the existing legal order and its replacement by a about one-half of the members; warrants of arrest have been
new one, no nullification of the Constitution. issued, openly defied, and remained unexecuted like mere
scraps of paper, notwithstanding the fact that the persons to
What is involved in these cases is similar to what happened in be arrested are prominent persons with well-known addresses
1949 in Avelino v. Cuenco.10 In that case, in order to prevent and residences and have been in daily contact with news
Senator Lorenzo M. Tañada from airing charges against reporters and photographers. Farce and mockery have been
Senate President Jose Avelino, the latter refused to recognize interspersed with actions and movements provoking conflicts
him, as a result of which tumult broke out in the Senate gallery, which invite bloodshed.
 Macapagal-Arroyo to vacate the Office of the President so that
. . . Indeed there is no denying that the situation, as obtaining petitioner Joseph E. Estrada can be reinstated should the
in the upper chamber of Congress, is highly explosive. It had judgment in these cases be in his favor. Whether such writ will
echoed in the House of Representatives. It has already be obeyed will be a test of our commitment to the rule of law.
involved the President of the Philippines. The situation has In election cases, people accept the decisions of courts even if
created a veritable national crisis, and it is apparent that they be against the results as proclaimed. Recognition given
solution cannot be expected from any quarter other than this by foreign governments to the presidency poses no problem.
Supreme Court, upon which the hopes of the people for an So, as far as the political question argument of respondents is
effective settlement are pinned.11 anchored on the difficulty or impossibility of devising effective
judicial remedies, this defense should not bar inquiry into the
In voting to assume jurisdiction, Chief Justice Paras wrote: legitimacy of the Macapagal-Arroyo administration.
"[T]his Court has no other alternative but to meet the challenge
of the situation which demands the utmost of judicial temper This brings me to the main issue, whether respondent Gloria
and judicial statesmanship. As herein before stated, the Macapagal-Arroyo's ascension to the Presidency was in
present crisis in the Senate is one that imperatively calls for accordance with the Constitution. Art. VII. §8 provides in
the intervention of this Court."12 Questions raised concerning pertinent parts:
respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's presidency similarly
justify, in my view, judicial intervention in these cases. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or
resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become
Nor is our power to fashion appropriate remedies in these the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of death,
cases in doubt. Respondents contend that there is nothing permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both
else that can be done about the assumption into office of the President and Vice-President, the President of the Senate
respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. What has been done or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of
cannot be undone. It is like toothpaste, we are told, which, Representatives, shall then act as President until the President
once squeezed out of the tube, cannot be put back. or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified.

Both literally and figuratively, the argument is untenable. The The events that led to the departure of petitioner Joseph E.
toothpaste can be put back into the tube. Literally, it can be put Estrada from office are well known and need not be recounted
back by opening the bottom of the tube — that is how in great detail here. They began in October 2000 when
toothpaste is put in tubes at manufacture in the first place. allegations of wrong doings involving bribe-taking, illegal
Metaphorically, the toothpaste can also be put back. In G.R. gambling (jueteng), and other forms of corruption were made
No. 146738, a writ can be issued ordering respondent Gloria against petitioner before the Blue Ribbon Committee of the
Senate. On November 13, 2000, petitioner was impeached by Malacañang to demand that the president leave office. An air
the House of Representatives and, on December 7, force fighter jet and four military helicopters buzzed the palace
impeachment proceedings were begun in the Senate during to remind the president that had lost the reins of power. [FAR
which more serious allegations of graft and corruption against EASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW, supra, ibid].
petitioner were made and were only stopped on January 16,
2001 when 11 senators, sympathetic to petitioner, succeeded While the television cameras were focused on the rallies – and
in suppressing damaging evidence against petitioner. As a the commentators became lost in reveries about People
result, the impeachment trial was thrown into an uproar as the Power revisited – behind-the-scenes negotiations had been
entire prosecution panel walked out and Senate President going on non-stop between military factions loyal to Estrada
Aquilino Pimentel resigned after casting his vote against and those who advocated a quick coup to depose the
petitioner. President. Chief of Staff Reyes and Defense Secretary
Mercado had made their fateful call to Estrada after luncheon
The events, as seen through the eyes of foreign attended by all the top commanders. The officers agreed that
correspondents, are vividly recounted in the following excerpts renouncing Estrada was the best course, in part because
from the Far Eastern Economic Review and Time Magazine some commanders were urging more drastic resolution. If the
quoted in the Memorandum of petitioner in G.R. Nos. military did not come to a consensus, there loomed the
146710-15, thus: possibility of factional fighting or, worse, civil war. [TIME,
"People Power Redux", id at p. 18]
The decision immediately sent hundreds of Filipinos out into
the streets, triggering rallies that swelled into a massive It finally took a controversial Supreme Court declaration that
four-day demonstration. But while anger was apparent among the presidency was effectively vacant to persuade Estrada to
the middle classes, Estrada, a master of the common touch, pack up and move out to his family home in Manila – still
still retained largely passive support among the poorest refusing to sign a letter of resignation and insisting that he was
Filipinos. Citing that mandate and exploiting the letter of the the legal president [FAR EASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW,
Constitution, which stipulates that a written resignation be "More Power to the Powerful", supra, ibid.]. Petitioner then
presented, he refused to step down even after all of the armed sent two letters, one to the Senate President and the other to
forced, the police and most of his cabinet withdrew their the Speaker of the House, indicating that he was unable to
support for him. [FAR EASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW, "More perform the duties of his Office.13
Power to The Powerful", id, at p. 18].
To recall these events is to note the moral framework in which
When an entire night passed without Estrada's resignation, petitioner's fall from power took place. Petitioner's counsel
tens of thousands of frustrated protesters marched on claimed petitioner was forced out of Malacañang Palace, seat
of the Presidency, because petitioner was "threatened with The President says: "Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko
mayhem."14 What, the President of the Philippines, who under na-masyado nang masakit. Pagod na ako sa red tape,
the Constitution is the commander-in-chief of all the armed bureaucracy, intriga. (I am very tired. I don't want any more of
forces, threatened with mayhem? This can only happen this-it's too painful. I'm tired of the red tape, the bureaucracy,
because he had lost his moral authority as the elected the intrigue.)15
President.
Angara himself shared this view of petitioner's inability. He
Indeed, the people power movement did not just happen at the wrote in his diary:
call of some ambitious politicians, military men, businessmen
and/or prelates. It came about because the people, rightly or "Let us be realistic," I counter. "The President does not have
wrongly, believed the allegations of graft and corruption made the capability to organize a counter-attack. He does not have
by Luis "Chavit" Singson, Emma Lim, Edgardo Espiritu, and the AFP or the Philippine National Police on his side. He is not
other witnesses against petitioner. Their testimonies during the only in a corner – he is also down."16
impeachment trial were all televised and heard by millions of
people throughout the length and breadth of this archipelago. This is the clearest proof that petitioner was totally and
As a result, petitioner found himself on January 19, 2001 permanently disabled at least as of 11 P.M. of Friday, January
deserted as most of his cabinet members resigned, members 19, 2001. Hence the negotiations for the transfer of power to
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine the respondent Vice-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. It
National Police withdrew their support of the President, while belies petitioner's claim that he was not permanently disabled
civil society announced its loss of trust and confidence in him. but only temporarily unable to discharge the powers and duties
Public office is a public trust. Petitioner lost the public's trust of his office and therefore can only be temporarily replaced by
and as a consequence remained President only in name. respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo under Art. VII, §11.
Having lost the command of the armed forces and the national
police, he found Himself vulnerable to threats of mayhem. From this judgment that petitioner became permanently
disabled because he had lost the public's trust, I except
This is the confession of one who is beaten. After all, the extravagant claims of the right of the people to change their
permanent disability referred to in the Constitution can be government. While Art. II, §1 of the Constitution says that
physical, mental or moral, rendering the President unable to "sovereignty resides in the people and all government
exercise the powers and functions of his office. As his close authority emanates from them," it also says that "the
adviser wrote in his diary of the final hours of petitioner's Philippines is a democratic and republican state." This means
presidency: that ours is a representative democracy — as distinguished
from a direct democracy — in which the sovereign will of the
people is expressed through the ballot, whether in an election, such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
referendum, initiative, recall (in the case of local officials) or Security.17
plebiscite. Any exercise of the powers of sovereignty in any
other way is unconstitutional. Here, as I have already indicated, what took place at EDSA
from January 16 to 20, 2001 was not a revolution but the
Indeed, the right to revolt cannot be recognized as a peaceful expression of popular will. The operative fact which
constitutional principle. A constitution to provide for the right of enabled Vice-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to assume
the people to revolt will carry with it the seeds of its own the presidency was the fact that there was a crisis, nay a
destruction. Rather, the right to revolt is affirmed as a natural vacuum, in the executive leadership which made the
right. Even then, it must be exercised only for weighty and government rife for seizure by lawless elements. The
serious reasons. As the Declaration of Independence of July 4, presidency was up for grabs, and it was imperative that the
1776 of the American Congress states: rule of succession in the Constitution be enforced.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are But who is to declare the President's permanent disability,
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with petitioner asks? The answer was given by petitioner himself
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, when he said that he was already tired and wanted no more of
and the Pursuit of Happiness — That to secure these Rights, popular demonstrations and rallies against him; when he and
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just his advisers negotiated with respondent Gloria
Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Macapagal-Arroyo's advisers for a transition of powers from
Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is him to her; when petitioner's own Executive Secretary
the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute declared that petitioner was not only in a corner but was down.
new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles,
and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem Nor is it correct for petitioner to say that the present situation is
most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, similar to our situation during the period (from 1941 to 1943) of
indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should our occupation by the Japanese, when we had two presidents,
not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly namely, Manuel L. Quezon and Jose P. Laurel. This is turning
all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to somersault with history. The Philippines had two presidents at
suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by that time for the simple reason that there were then two
abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when governments — the de facto government established by Japan
a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably as belligerent occupant, of which Laurel was president, and
the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under the de jure Commonwealth Government in exile of President
absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off Manuel L. Quezon. That a belligerent occupant has a right to
establish a government in enemy territory is a recognized
principle of international law.18 But today we have only one Footnotes
government, and it is the one set up in the 1987 Constitution.
Hence, there can only be one President. 1 Joint Memorandum of the Secretary of Justice and Solicitor
General, p. 15.
Having reached the conclusion that petitioner Joseph E.
Estrada is no longer President of the Philippines, I find no 2 Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v. President
need to discuss his claim of immunity from suit. I believe in the Corazon C. Aquino, G.R. No. 73746, May 22, 1986.
canon of adjudication that the Court should not formulate a
rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the 3 Letter of Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, 210 SCRA
precise facts to which it is applied. 589, 597 (1992).

The only question left for resolution is whether there was 4 Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1 (1848).
massive prejudicial publicity attending the investigation by the
Ombudsman of the criminal charges against petitioner. The 5 Political Questions, 38 Harv. L. Rev. 296, 305 (1925).
test in this jurisdiction is whether there has been "actual, not
merely possible, prejudice"19 caused to petitioner as a result 6 50 SCRA 30 (1973).
of publicity. There has been no proof of this, and so I think this
claim should simply be dismissed. 7 104 SCRA ! (1981).

For the foregoing reasons, I vote to dismiss the petitions in 8 104 SCRA 59 (1981).
these cases.
9 Joint Memorandum of the Secretary of Justice and Solicitor
General, p. 2.

(Sgd.) 10 83 Phil. 17 (1949).

VICENTE V. MENDOZA 11 83 Phil. At 76 (Perfecto, J., concurring).

Associate Justice 12 Id. at 25-26 (concurring and dissenting).

13 Memorandum for Petitioner, G.R. Nos, 146710-15, pp. 5-6.

14 Petition, G.R. No. 146738, p. 13.

15 Edgardo Angara, Erap's Final Hours Told, Philippine Daily

Inquirier, p. A6, February 6, 2001.

16 Id. (emphasis added).

17 Emphasis added.

18 Co Kim Cham v. Valdez, 75 Phil. 113 (1945); Peralta v.

Director of Prisons, 75 Phil. 285 (1945); Laurel v. Misa, 77 Phil.
856 (1947).

19 See Martelino v. Alejandro, 32 SCRA 106 (1970).