PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
Sponsored
by: The
ChanRobles LawNet
Search
www.chanrobles.com
.

Republic of the
Philippines
SUPREME
COURT
Manila
EN
BANC
JOSEPH
E. ESTRADA,
Petitioner,
G.
R. Nos. 146710-15
March
2, 2001
-versus-
ANIANO
DESIERTO, in his capacity as Ombudsman,
RAMON
GONZALES, VOLUNTEERS AGAINST CRIME AND CORRUPTION,
GRAFT
FREE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION, INC., LEONARD DE VERA,
DENNIS
FUNA, ROMEO CAPULONG and ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR.,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
JOSEPH E. ESTRADA,
Petitioner,
G.
R. No. 146738
March
2, 2001
-versus-
GLORIA
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I O N
PUNO,
J.:
On the line in the cases at bar is the office of the President.
Petitioner
Joseph Ejercito Estrada alleges that he is the President on leave while
respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo claims she is the President.
The
warring personalities are important enough but more transcendental are
the constitutional issues embedded on the parties’ dispute. While the
significant
issues are many, the jugular issue involves the relationship between
the
ruler and the ruled in a democracy, Philippine style.
First, we take a view of the panorama of events that precipitated the
crisis
in the office of the President.
In the May 11, 1998 elections, petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada was
elected
President while respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was elected
Vice-President.
Some ten (10) million Filipinos voted for the petitioner believing he
would
rescue them from life’s adversity. Both petitioner and the
respondent
were to serve a six-year term commencing on June 30, 1998.
From the beginning of his term, however, petitioner was plagued by a
plethora
of problems that slowly but surely eroded his popularity. His
sharp
descent from power started on October 4, 2000. Ilocos Sur
Governor,
Luis “Chavit” Singson, a longtime friend of the petitioner,
went
on air and accused the petitioner, his family and friends of receiving
millions of pesos from jueteng lords.
[1]
The expose immediately ignited
reactions of rage. The next day, October 5, 2000, Senator
Teofisto
Guingona Jr, then the Senate Minority Leader, took the floor and
delivered
a fiery privilege speech entitled “I Accuse.” He accused the
petitioner
of receiving some P220 million in jueteng
money
from Governor Singson from November 1998 to August 2000. He also
charged that the petitioner took from Governor Singson P70
million on excise tax on cigarettes intended for Ilocos Sur. The
privilege speech was referred by then Senate President Franklin Drilon,
to the Blue Ribbon Committee (then headed by Senator Aquilino Pimentel)
and the Committee on Justice (then headed by Senator Renato Cayetano)
for
joint investigation. [2]
The House of Representatives
did no less. The House Committee on Public Order and Security,
then
headed by Representative Roilo Golez, decided to investigate the
exposé
of Governor Singson. On the other hand, Representatives Heherson
Alvarez, Ernesto Herrera and Michael Defensor spearheaded the move to
impeach
the petitioner.
Calls for the resignation of the petitioner filled the air. On
October
11, Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin issued a pastoral statement in behalf
of the Presbyteral Council of the Archdiocese of Manila, asking
petitioner
to step down from the presidency as he had lost the moral authority to
govern. [3]
Two days later or on October
13,
the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippine joined the cry for
the
resignation of the petitioner.
[4]
Four days later, or on October 17, former
President Corazon
C. Aquino also demanded that the petitioner take the “supreme
self-sacrifice”
of resignation. [5]
Former President Fidel Ramos
also
joined the chorus. Early on, or on October 12, respondent Arroyo
resigned as Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and
Services
[6]
and later asked for petitioner’s resignation. [7]
However, petitioner strenuously held on to his office and refused to
resign.
The heat was on. On November 1, four (4) senior economic
advisers,
members of the Council of Senior Economic Advisers, resigned.
They
were Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala, former Prime Minister Cesar Virata,
former Senator Vicente Paterno and Washington Sycip. [8]
On November 2, Secretary Mar Roxas II also resigned from the Department
of Trade and Industry.[9]
On November 3, Senate President Franklin Drilon, and House Speaker
Manuel
Villar, together with some 47 representatives defected from the ruling
coalition, Lapian ng Masang Pilipino.[10]
The month of November ended with a big bang. In a tumultuous session on
November 13, House Speaker Villar transmitted the Articles of
Impeachment
[11]
signed by 115 representatives, or more than 1/3 of all the members of
the
House of Representatives to the Senate. This caused political
convulsions
in both houses of Congress. Senator Drilon was replaced by
Senator
Pimentel as Senate President. Speaker Villar was unseated by
Representative
Fuentabella.[12]
On November 20, the Senate formally opened the impeachment trial of the
petitioner. Twenty-one (21) senators took their oath as judges
with
Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., presiding.[13]
The political temperature rose despite the cold December. On
December
7, the impeachment trial started.[14]
The battle royale was fought by
some
of the marquee names in the legal profession. Standing as
prosecutors
were then House Minority Floor Leader Feliciano Belmonte and
Representatives
Joker Arroyo, Wigberto Tañada, Sergio Apostol, Raul Gonzales,
Oscar
Moreno, Salacnib Baterina, Roan Libarios, Oscar Rodriguez, Clavel
Martinez
and Antonio Nachura. They were assisted by a battery of private
prosecutors
led by now Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez and now Solicitor
General
Simeon Marcelo. Serving as defense counsels were former Chief
Justice
Andres Narvasa, former Solicitor General and Secretary of Justice
Estelito
P. Mendoza, former City Fiscal of Manila Jose Flamiano, former Deputy
Speaker
of the House Raul Daza, Atty. Siegfried Fortun and his brother, Atty.
Raymund
Fortun. The day to day trial was covered by live TV and during
its
course enjoyed the highest viewing rating. Its high and low
points
were the constant conversational piece of the chattering classes.
The dramatic point of the December hearings was the testimony of
Clarissa
Ocampo, senior vice president of Equitable-PCI Bank. She
testified
that she was one foot away from petitioner Estrada when he affixed the
signature “Jose Velarde” on documents involving a P500
million investment agreement with their bank on February 4, 2000.[15]
After the testimony of Ocampo, the impeachment trial was adjourned in
the
spirit of Christmas. When it resumed on January 2, 2001, more
bombshells
were exploded by the prosecution. On January 11, Atty. Edgardo
Espiritu
who served as petitioner’s Secretary of Finance took the witness
stand.
He alleged that the petitioner jointly owned BW Resources Corporation
with
Mr. Dante Tan who was facing charges of insider trading.[16]
Then came the fateful day of
January
16, when by a vote of 11-10,[17]
the senator-judges ruled against the opening of the second envelop
which
allegedly contained evidence showing that petitioner held P3.3
billion in a secret bank account under the name “Jose Velarde.”
The public and private prosecutors walked out in protest of the
ruling.
In disgust, Senator Pimentel resigned as Senate President.[18]
The ruling made at 10:00 was met by a spontaneous outburst of anger
that
hit the streets of the metropolis. By midnight, thousands had
assembled
at the EDSA Shrine and speeches full of sulphur were delivered against
the petitioner and the eleven (11) senators.
On January 17, the public prosecutors submitted a letter to Speaker
Fuentebella
tendering their collective resignation. They also filed their
Manifestation
of Withdrawal of Appearance with the impeachment tribunal.[19]
Senator Raul Roco quickly moved for the indefinite postponement of the
impeachment proceedings until the House of Representatives shall have
resolved
the issue of resignation of the public prosecutors. Chief Justice
Davide granted the motion.[20]
January 18 saw the high velocity intensification of the call for
petitioner’s
resignation. A 10-kilometer line of people holding lighted
candles
formed a human chain from the Ninoy Aquino Monument on Ayala Avenue in
Makati City to the EDSA Shrine to symbolize the people’s solidarity in
demanding petitioner’s resignation. Students and teachers walked
out of their classes in Metro Manila to show their concordance.
Speakers
in the continuing rallies at the EDSA Shrine, all matters of the
physics
of persuasion, attracted more and more people.[21]
On January 19, the fall from power of the petitioner appeared
inevitable.
At 1:20 p.m., the petitioner informed Executive Secretary Edgardo
Angara
that General Angelo Reyes, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines,
had defected. At 2:30., petitioner agreed to the holding of a
snap
election for President where he would not be a candidate. It did
not diffuse the growing crisis. At 3:00 p.m., Secretary of
National
Defense Orlando Mercado and General Reyes, together with the chiefs of
all the armed services went to the EDSA Shrine.[22]
In the presence of former Presidents Aquino and Ramos and hundreds of
thousands
of cheering demonstrators, General Reyes declared that “on behalf of
your Armed Forces, the 130,000 strong members of the Armed Forces, we
wish
to announce that we are withdrawing our support to this government.”[23]
A little later, PNP Chief, Director Panfilo Lacson and the major
service
commanders gave a similar stunning announcement.[24]
Some Cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries, and
bureau chiefs quickly resigned from their posts.[25]
Rallies for the resignation of the petitioner exploded in various parts
of the country. To stem the tide of rage, petitioner announced he
was ordering his lawyers to agree to the opening of the highly
controversial
second envelop.[26]
There was no turning back the tide. The tide had become a tsunami.
January 20, turned to be the day of surrender. At 12:20 a.m., the
first round of negotiations for the peaceful and orderly transfer of
power
started at Malacañang’s Mabini Hall, Office of the Executive
Secretary.
Secretary Edgardo Angara, Senior Deputy Executive Secretary Ramon
Bagatsing,
Political Adviser Angelito Banayo, Asst. Secretary Boying Remulla, and
Atty. Macel Fernandez, head of the Presidential Management Staff,
negotiated
for the petitioner. Respondent Arroyo was represented by now
Executive
Secretary Renato de Villa, now Secretary of Finance Alberto Romulo and
now Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez.[27]
Outside the palace, there was a brief encounter at Mendiola between pro
and anti-Estrada protesters which resulted in stone-throwing and caused
minor injuries. The negotiations consumed all morning until the news
broke
out that Chief Justice Davide would administer the oath to respondent
Arroyo
at high noon at the EDSA Shrine.
At about 12:00 noon, Chief Justice Davide administered the oath to
respondent
Arroyo as President of the Philippines.[28]
At 2:30 p.m., petitioner and his family hurriedly left
Malacañang
Palace.[29]
He issued the following press statement:[30]
“20
January 2001
"STATEMENT
FROM PRESIDENT JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA
"At
twelve o’ clock noon today, Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took
her oath as President of the Republic of the Philippines. While
along
with many other legal minds of our country, I have strong and serious
doubts
about the legality and constitutionality of her proclamation as
President,
I do not wish to be a factor that will prevent the restoration of unity
and order in our civil society.
"It
is for this reason that I now leave Malacañang Palace, the seat
of the presidency of this country, for the sake of peace and in order
to
begin the healing process of our nation, I leave the Palace of our
people
with gratitude for the opportunities given to me for service to our
people.
I will not shrink from any future challenges that may come ahead in the
same service of our country.
"I
call on all my supporters and followers to join me in the promotion of
a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity.
"May
the Almighty bless our country and beloved people.
"MABUHAY!
"(Sgd.)
JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA”
It also appears that on the same day, January 20, 2001, he signed the
following
letter:[31]
A copy of the letter was sent to former Speaker Fuentebella at 8:30
a.m.,
on January 20.[32]
Another copy was transmitted to
Senate President Pimentel on the same day although it was received only
at 9:00 p.m.[33]
On January 22, the Monday after taking her oath, respondent Arroyo
immediately
discharged the powers and duties of the Presidency. On the same
day,
this Court issued the following Resolution in Administrative Matter No.
01-1-05-SC, to wit:
“A.M.
No. 01-1-05-SC – In re: Request of Vice President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo
to Take her Oath of Office as President of the Republic of the
Philippines
before the Chief Justice. – Acting on the urgent request of
Vice-President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to be sworn in as President of the Republic of
the Philippines, addressed to the Chief Justice and confirmed by a
letter
to the Court, dated January 20, 2001, which request was treated as an
administrative
matter, the Court Resolved unanimously to confirm the authority given
by
the twelve (12) members of the Court then present to the Chief Justice
on January 20, 2001 to administer the oath of office to Vice President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Philippines, at noon of
January
20, 2001.
"This
resolution is without prejudice to the disposition of any justiciable
case
that ma be filed by a proper party.”
Respondent Arroyo appointed members of her Cabinet as well as
ambassadors
and special envoys.[34]
Recognition of respondent Arroyo’s government by foreign governments
swiftly
followed. On January 23, in a reception or vin d’ honneur at
Malacañang,
led by the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, Papal Nuncio Antonio Franco,
more
than a hundred foreign diplomats recognized the government of
respondent
Arroyo.[35]
US President George W. Bush gave the respondent a telephone call from
the
White House conveying US recognition of her government.[36]
On January 24, Representative Feliciano Belmonte was elected new
Speaker
of the House of Representatives.[37]
The House then passed Resolution No. 175 “expressing the full
support
of the House of Representatives to the administration of Her Excellency
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines.”[38]
It also approved Resolution No. 176 “expressing the support of the
House
of Representatives to the assumption into office by Vice President
Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Republic of the Philippines,
extending
its congratulations and expressing its support for her administration
as
a partner in the attainment of the nation’s goals under the
Constitution.”[39]
On January 26, the respondent signed into law the Solid Waste
Management
Act.[40]
A few days later, she also signed into law the Political
Advertising Ban and Fair Practices Act.[41]
On February 6, respondent Arroyo nominated Senator Teofisto Guingona,
Jr.,
as her Vice President.[42]
The next day, February 7, the Senate adopted Resolution No. 82
confirming
the nomination of Senator Guingona, Jr.[43]
Senators Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Juan Ponce Enrile, and John
Osmeña
voted “yes” with reservations, citing as reason therefor the
pending
challenge on the legitimacy of respondent Arroyo’s presidency before
the
Supreme Court. Senators Teresa Aquino-Oreta and Robert Barbers
were
absent.[44]
The House of Representatives also approved Senator Guingona’s
nomination
in Resolution No. 178.[45]
Senator Guingona took his oath as Vice President two (2) days later.[46]
On February 7, the Senate passed Resolution No. 83 declaring that the
impeachment
court is functus officio and has been terminated.[47]
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago stated “for the record” that
she
voted against the closure of the impeachment court on the grounds that
the Senate had failed to decide on the impeachment case and that
resolution
left open the question of whether Estrada was still qualified to run
for
another elective post.[48]
Meanwhile, in a survey conducted by Pulse Asia, President Arroyo’s
public
acceptance rating jacked up from 16% on January 20, 2001 to 38% on
January
26, 2001.[49]
In another survey conducted by the ABS-CBN/SWS from February 2-7, 2001,
results showed that 61% of the Filipinos nationwide accepted President
Arroyo as replacement of petitioner Estrada. The survey also
revealed
that President Arroyo is accepted by 60% in Metro Manila, by also 60%
in
the balance of Luzon, by 71% in the Visayas, and 55% in Mindanao.
Her trust rating increased to 52%. Her presidency is accepted by
majorities in all classes: 58% in
the
ABC or middle-to-upper classes, 64% in the D or mass, and 54% among the
E’s or very poor class.[50]
After his fall from the pedestal of power, the petitioner’s legal
problems
appeared in clusters. Several cases previously filed against him in the
Office of the Ombudsman were set in motion. These are: (1)
OMB Case No. 0-00-1629, filed by Ramon A. Gonzales on October 23, 2000
for bribery and graft and corruption; (2) OMB Case No. 0-00-1754 filed
by the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption on November 17, 2000 for
plunder, forfeiture, graft and corruption, bribery, perjury, serious
misconduct,
violation of the Code of Conduct for Government Employees, etc.; (3)
OMB
Case No. 0-00-1755 filed by the Graft Free Philippines Foundation, Inc.
on November 24, 2000 for plunder, forfeiture, graft and corruption,
bribery,
perjury, serious misconduct; (4) OMB Case No. 0-00-1756 filed by Romeo
Capulong, et al., on November 28, 2000 for malversation of public
funds,
illegal use of public funds and property, plunder, etc., (5) OMB Case
No.
0-00-1757 filed by Leonard de Vera, et al., on November 28, 2000 for
bribery,
plunder, indirect bribery, violation of PD 1602, PD 1829, PD 46, and
R.A.
7080; and (6) OMB Case No. 0-00-1758 filed by Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr.
on December 4, 2000 for plunder, graft and corruption.
A special panel of investigators was forthwith created by the
respondent
Ombudsman to investigate the charges against petitioner. It is chaired
by Overall Deputy Ombudsman Margarito P. Gervasio with the following as
members, viz: Director Andrew Amuyutan, Prosecutor Pelayo
Apostol, Atty. Jose de Jesus and Atty. Emmanuel Laureso. On
January
22, the panel issued an Order directing the petitioner to file his
counter-affidavit
and the affidavits of his witnesses as well as other supporting
documents
in answer to the aforementioned complaints against him.
Thus, the stage for the cases at bar was set. On February 5,
petitioner
filed with this Court G.R. No. 146710-15, a petition for prohibition
with
a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. It sought to
enjoin
the respondent Ombudsman from “conducting any further proceedings
in
Cases Nos. OMB 0-00-1629, 1754, 1755, 1756, 1757 and 1758 or in any
other
criminal complaint that may be filed in his office, until after the
term
of petitioner as President is over and only if legally warranted.” Thru
another counsel, petitioner, on February 6, filed G.R. No. 146738 for
Quo
Warranto. He prayed for judgment “confirming petitioner to be
the lawful and incumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines
temporarily
unable to discharge the duties of his office, and declaring respondent
to have taken her oath as and to be holding the Office of the
President,
only in an acting capacity pursuant to the provisions of the
Constitution.”
Acting on G.R. Nos. 146710-15, the Court, on the same day, February 6,
required the respondents “ to comment thereon within a
non-extendible
period expiring on 12 February 2001.” On February 13, the Court
ordered
the consolidation of G.R. Nos. 146710-15 and G.R. No. 146738 and the
filing
of the respondents’ comments “on or before 8:00 a.m. of February
15.”
On February 15, the consolidated cases were orally argued in a
four-hour
hearing. Before the hearing, Chief Justice Davide, Jr.,[51]
and Associate Justice Artemio Panganiban[52]
recused themselves on motion of
petitioner’s counsel, former Senator Rene A. Saguisag. They
debunked
the charge of counsel Saguisag that they have “compromised
themselves
by indicating that they have thrown their weight on one side” but
nonetheless
inhibited themselves. Thereafter, the parties were given the
short
period of five (5) days to file their memoranda and two (2) days to
submit
their simultaneous replies.
In a resolution dated February 20, acting on the urgent motion for
copies
of resolution and press statement for “Gag Order” on respondent
Ombudsman
filed by counsel for petitioner in G.R. No. 146738, the Court resolved:
“(1)
to inform the parties that the Court did not issue a resolution on
January
20, 2001 declaring the office of the President vacant and that neither
did the Chief Justice issue a press statement justifying the alleged
resolution;
"(2)
to order the parties and especially their counsel who are officers of
the
Court under pain being cited for contempt to refrain from making any
comment
or discussing in public the merits of the cases at bar while they are
still
pending decision by the Court, and
"(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 at bar, it appearing from news reports that the respondent
Ombudsman may immediately resolve the cases against petitioner Joseph
E.
Estrada seven (7) days after the hearing held on February 15, 2001,
which
action will make the cases at bar moot and academic.”[53]
The parties filed their replies on February 24. On this date, the cases
at bar were deemed submitted for decision. The bedrock issues for
resolution of this Court are:
I.
Whether the petitions present a
justiciable
controversy.
II.
Assuming that the petitions present a
justiciable controversy, whether petitioner Estrada is a President on
leave
while respondent Arroyo is an Acting President.
III.
Whether conviction in the impeachment
proceedings is a condition precedent for the criminal prosecution of
petitioner
Estrada. In the negative and on the assumption that petitioner is still
President, whether he is immune from criminal prosecution.
IV.
Whether the prosecution of petitioner
Estrada should be enjoined on the ground of prejudicial publicity.
We shall discuss the issues in seriatim.
Whether
or not the cases at bar involve a political question.
Private respondents[54]
raise the threshold issue that the cases at bar pose a political
question,
and hence, are beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to decide. They
contend
that shorn of its embroideries, the cases at bar assail the
“legitimacy
of the Arroyo administration.” They stress that respondent Arroyo
ascended
the presidency through people power; that she has already taken her
oath
as the 14th President of the Republic; that she has exercised the
powers
of the presidency and that she has been recognized by foreign
governments.
They submit that these realities on ground constitute the political
thicket
which the Court cannot enter.
We reject private respondents’ submission. To be sure, courts here and
abroad, have tried to lift the shroud on political question but its
exact
latitude still splits the best of legal minds. Developed by the courts
in the 20th century, the political question doctrine which rests in the
principle of separation of powers and on prudential considerations,
continue
to be refined in the mills constitutional law.[55]
In the United States, the most
authoritative guidelines to determine whether a question is political
were
spelled out by Mr. Justice Brennan in the 1962 case of Baker v. Carr[56]viz:
“x x x Prominent on the
surface on any case held to involve a political question is found a
textually
demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate
political
department or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable
standards
for resolving it, or the impossibility of deciding without an initial
policy
determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretions; or the
impossibility
of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack
of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual
need
for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or
the
potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by
various
departments on question. Unless one of these formulations is
inextricable
from the case at bar, there should be no dismissal for non
justiciability
on the ground of a political question’s presence. The doctrine of
which we treat is one of ‘political questions’, not of ‘political
cases’.”
In the Philippine setting, this Court has been continuously confronted
with cases calling for a firmer delineation of the inner and outer
perimeters
of a political question.[57]
Our leading case is Tanada v. Cuenco,[58]
where this Court, through former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, held
that political questions refer “to those questions which, under the
Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign
capacity,
or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated
to
the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is concerned
with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a particular
measure.”
To a great degree, the 1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the
political question doctrine when it expanded the power of judicial
review
of this court not only to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable but also to determine
whether
or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of
government.[59]
Heretofore, the judiciary has focused on the “thou shalt not’s”
of the Constitution
directed against the exercise of its jurisdiction.[60]
With the new provision, however, courts are given a greater
prerogative
to determine what it can do to prevent grave abuse of discretion
amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality
of government. Clearly, the new provision did not just grant the
Court power of doing nothing. In sync and symmetry with this
intent
are other provisions of the 1987
Constitution trimming the so called political thicket.
Prominent
of these provisions is section 18 of Article VII which empowers this
Court
in limpid language to “x x x review, in an appropriate proceeding
filed
by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation
of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ (of
habeas
corpus) or the extension thereof x x x.”
Respondents rely on the case of’ Lawyers League for a Better
Philippines
and/or Oliver A. Lozano v. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al.[61]
and related cases[62]
to support their thesis that since the cases at bar involve the
legitimacy
of the government of respondent Arroyo, ergo, they present a political
question. A more cerebral reading of the cited cases will show
that
they are inapplicable. In the cited cases, we held 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
Constitution[63]
declared that the Aquino government was installed through a direct
exercise
of’ the power of the Filipino people “in defiance of the provisions
of the 1973 Constitution, as amended.” It is familiar learning that
the legitimacy of a government sired by a successful revolution by
people
power is beyond judicial scrutiny for that government automatically
orbits
out of the constitutional loop. In checkered contrast, the government
of
respondent Arroyo is not revolutionary in character. The oath
that
she took at the EDSA Shrine is the oath under the 1987
Constitution.[64]
In her oath, she categorically swore to preserve and defend the 1987
Constitution. Indeed, she has stressed that she is
discharging
the powers of the presidency under the authority of the 1987
Constitution.
In fine, the legal distinction between EDSA People Power I and EDSA
People
Power II is clear. EDSA I involves the exercise of the people
power
of revolution which overthrew the whole government. EDSA II is an
exercise of people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly
to
petition the government for redress of grievances which only affected
the
office of the President. EDSA I is extra constitutional and the
legitimacy
of the new government that resulted from it cannot be the subject of
judicial
review, but EDSA II is intra constitutional and the resignation of the
sitting President that it caused and the succession of the Vice
President
as President are subject to judicial review. EDSA I presented
political
question; EDSA II involves legal questions. A brief discourse on
freedom of speech and of the freedom of assembly to petition the
government
for redress of grievance which are the cutting edge of EDSA People
Power
II is not inappropriate.
Freedom of speech and the right of assembly are treasured by
Filipinos.
Denial of these rights was one of the reasons of our 1898 revolution
against
Spain. Our national hero, Jose P. Rizal, raised the
clarion
call for the recognition of freedom of the press of the Filipinos and
included
it as among “the reforms sine quibus non.”[65]
The Malolos
Constitution, which is the work of the revolutionary Congress in
1898,
provided in its Bill of’ Rights that Filipinos shall not be deprived
(1)
of the right to freely express his ideas or opinions, orally or in
writing,
through the use of the press or other similar means; (2) of the right
of
association for purposes of human life and which are not contrary to
public
means; and (3) of the right to send petitions to the authorities,
individually
or collectively.” These fundamental rights were preserved when the
United
States acquired jurisdiction over the Philippines. In the
instruction
to the Second Philippine Commission of April 7, 1900 issued by
President
McKinley, it is specifically provided “that no law shall be passed
abridging
the freedom of speech or of the press or of the rights of the people to
peaceably assemble and petition the Government for redress of
grievances.”
The guaranty was carried over in the Philippine Bill, the Act of
Congress
of July 1, 1902 and the Jones Law, the Act of Congress of August 29,
l966.[66]
Thence on, the guaranty was set in stone in our 1935 Constitution,[67]
and the 1973[68]
Constitution. These rights are now safely ensconced in section 4,
Article
Ill of the 1987
Constitution, viz:
“Sec.
4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of’ speech, of
expression,
or of the press, or the right of’ the people peaceably to assemble and
petition the government for redress of grievances.”
The indispensability of’ the people’s freedom of speech and of assembly
to democracy is now self-evident. The reasons are well put by
Emerson:
first, freedom of expression is essential as a means of assuring
individual
fulfillment; second, it is an essential process for advancing knowledge
and discovering truth; third, it is essential to provide for
participation
in decision-making by all members of society; and fourth, it is a
method
of achieving a more adaptable and hence, a more stable community of’
maintaining
the precarious balance between healthy cleavage and necessary
consensus.”[69]
In this sense, freedom of
speech
and of assembly provides a framework in which the “conflict
necessary
to the progress of a society can take place without destroying the
society.”[70]
In Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization,[71]
this function of free speech and assembly was echoed in the amicus
curiae
brief filed by the Bill of Rights Committee of the American Bar
Association
which emphasized that “the basis of the right of assembly is the
substitution
of 'the expression of opinion and belief’ by talk rather than force;
and
this means talk for all and by all.”[72]
In the relatively recent case of Subayco v. Sandiganbayan,[73]
this Court similarly stressed that it should be clear even to
those
with intellectual deficits that when the sovereign people assemble to
petition
for redress of grievances, all should listen. For in a democracy,
it is the people who count; those who are deaf to their grievances are
ciphers.
Needless to state, the cases at bar pose legal and not political
questions.
The principal issues for resolution require the proper interpretation
of
certain provisions in the 1987
Constitution, notably section 1 of Article II,[74]
and section 8[75]
of Article VII, and the
allocation
of governmental powers under section II[76]of
Article VII. The issues likewise call for a ruling on the scope
of
presidential immunity from suit. They also involve the correct
calibration
of the right of petitioner against prejudicial publicity. As
early
as the 1803 case of Marybury v. Madison,[77]
the doctrine has been laid down
that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department
to say what the law is . . .” Thus respondent’s invocation of the
doctrine
of political is but a foray in the dark.
II
Whether
or not the petitioner resigned as President
We now slide to the second issue. None of the parties considered issue
as posing a political question. Indeed, it involves a legal
question
whose factual ingredient is determinable from the records of the case
and
by resort to judicial notice. Petitioner denies he resigned as
President
or that he suffers from a permanent disability. Hence, he submits that
the office of the President was not vacant when respondent Arroyo took
her oath as president.
The issue brings under the microscope of the meaning of Section 8,
Article
VII of the Constitution
which provides:
“Sec.
8. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office or
resignation
of the President, the Vice President shall become the President to
serve
the unexpired term. In case of death, permanent disability, removal
from
office, or resignation of both the President and Vice President, the
President
of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, shall then acts as President until President or Vice
President
shall have been elected and qualified.
x
x x.”
The issue then is whether the petitioner resigned as President or
should
be considered resigned as of January 20, 2001 when respondent took her
oath as the 14th President of the Republic. Resignation is not a
high level abstraction. It is a factual question and its elements
are beyond quibble: there must be an intent to resign and the
intent
must be coupled by acts of relinquishment.[78]
The validity of a resignation
is
not a governed by any formal requirement as to form. It can be
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.
In the cases at bar, the facts shows that petitioner did not write any
formal letter of resignation before he evacuated Malacañang
Palace
in the afternoon of January 20, 2001 after the oath-taking of
respondent
Arroyo. Consequently, whether or not petitioner resigned has to
be
determined from his acts and omission before, during and after January
20, 2001 or by the totality of prior, contemporaneous and posterior
facts
and circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on the issue.
Using this totality test, we hold that petitioner resigned as President.
To appreciate the public pressure that led to the resignation of the
petitioner,
it is important to follow the succession of events after the
exposé
of Governor Singson. The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
investigated.
The more detailed revelations of petitioner’s alleged misgovernance in
Blue Ribbon investigation spiked the hate against him. The
Articles
of Impeachment filed in the House of Representatives which initially
was
given the signatures of 115 representatives or more than 1/3 of the
House
of Representatives. Soon, petitioner’s powerful political allies
began deserting him. Respondent Arroyo quit as Secretary of
Social
Welfare. Senate President Drilon and Former Speaker Villar
defected
with 47 representatives in tow. Then, his respected senior
economic
advisers resigned together with his Secretary of Trade and Industry.
As the political isolation of the petitioner worsened, the people’s
call
for his resignation intensified. The call reached a new crescendo
when the eleven (11) members of the impeachment tribunal refused to
open
the second envelope. It sent the people to paroxysms of
outrage.
Before the night of January 16 was over, the EDSA Shrine was swarming
with
people crying for redress of their grievance. Their number grew
exponentially.
Rallies and demonstration quickly spread to the countryside like a
brush
fire.
As events approached January 20, we can have an authoritative window on
the state of mind of the petitioner. The window is provided in
the
“Final Days of Joseph Ejercito Estrada,” the diary of Executive
Secretary Angara serialized in the Philippine Daily Inquirer.[79]
The Angara Diary reveals that
in
morning of January 19, petitioner’s loyal advisers were worried about
the
welling of the crowd at EDSA, hence, they decided to crate an ad
hoc
committee to handle it. Their worry would worsen. At
1:20
p.m., petitioner pulled Secretary Angara into a small office at the
presidential
residence and exclaimed: “Ed, seryoso na ito. Kumalas na si
Angelo
(Reyes) (Ed, this is serious. Angelo has defected.)”[80]
An hour later or at 2:30, p.m. the petitioner decided to call a snap
presidential
election and stressed he would not be a candidate. The proposal
for
a snap election for president in May where he would not be a candidate
is an indicium that petitioner had intended to give up the
presidency
even at that time. At 3:00 p.m., General Reyes joined the sea of
EDSA demonstrators demanding the resignation of the petitioner and
dramatically
announced the AFP’s withdrawal of support from the petitioner and their
pledge of support to respondent Arroyo. The seismic shift of
support
left petitioner weak as a president. According to Secretary
Angara,
he asked Senator Pimentel to advise petitioner to consider the option
of
“dignified exit or resignation.”[81]
Petitioner did not disagree but
listened intently.[82]
The sky was falling fast on the
petitioner. At 9:30 p.m., Senator Pimentel repeated to the
petitioner
the urgency of making a graceful and dignified exit. He gave the
proposal a sweetener by saying the petitioner would be allowed to go
abroad
with enough funds to support him and his family.[83]
Significantly, the petitioner
expressed
no objection to the suggestion for graceful and dignified exit but said
he would never leave the country.[84]
At 10:00 p.m., petitioner
revealed
to Secretary Angara, “Ed, Angie (Reyes) guaranteed that I would
have
five days to a week in the palace.”[85]
This is proof that petitioner
had
reconciled himself to the reality that he had to resign. His mind
was already concerned with the five-day grace period he could stay in
the
palace. It was a matter of time.
The pressure continued piling up. By 11:00 p.m., former President
Ramos called up Secretary Angara and requested, “Ed, magtulungan
tayo
para magkaroon tayo ng (let’s cooperate to ensure a) peaceful and
orderly
transfer of power.”[86]There
was no defiance to the request. Secretary Angara readily
agreed.
Again, we note that at this stage, the problem was already about a
peaceful
and orderly transfer of power. The resignation of the petitioner
was implied.
The first negotiation for a peaceful and orderly transfer of power
immediately
started at 12:20 a.m. of January 20, that fateful Saturday. The
negotiation
was limited to three (3) points: (1) the transition period of five days
after the petitioner’s resignation; (2) the guarantee of the safety of
the petitioner and his family, and (3) the agreement to open the second
envelope to vindicate the name of the petitioner.[87]
Again, we note that the
resignation
of petitioner was not a disputed point. The petitioner cannot
feign
ignorance of this fact. According to Secretary Angara, at 2:30
a.m.,
he briefed the petitioner on the three points and following entry in
the
Angara Diary shows the reaction of the petitioner, viz:
“x
x x
"I
explain what happened during the first round of negotiations. The
President
immediately stresses that he just wants a five-day period promised by
Reyes,
as well as to open the second envelope to clear his name.
"If
the envelope is opened, on Monday, he says, he will leave by Monday.
"The
President says. “Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko na masyado
nang
masakit. Pagod na ako sa red tape, bureaucracy, intriga. (I am
very tired. I don’t want any more of this – it’s too painful. I’m
tired of the red tape, the bureaucracy, the intrigue.)
"I just want to clear my name, then I will
go.”[88]
Again, this is high grade evidence that the petitioner has
resigned.
The intent to resign is clear when he said “x x x Ayoko na masyado
nang
masakit.” “ Ayoko na” are words of resignation.
The second round of
negotiation
resumed at 7:30 a.m. According to the Angara Diary, the following
happened:
“Opposition’s
deal
7:30
a.m. – Rene arrives with Bert Romulo and (Ms. Macapagal’s spokesperson)
Rene Corona. For this round, I am accompanied by Dondon Bagatsing
and Macel.
Rene
pulls out a document titled “Negotiating Points.” It reads:
‘1.
The President shall sign a resignation document within the day, 20
January
2001, that will be effective on Wednesday, 24 January 2001, on which
day
the Vice President will assume the Presidency of the Republic of the
Philippines.
2.
Beginning today, 20 January 2001, the transition process for the
assumption
of the new administration shall commence, and persons designated by the
Vice president to various positions and offices of the government shall
start their orientation activities in coordination with the incumbent
officials
concerned.
3.
The Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police
shall function under the Vice President as national military and police
effective immediately.
4.
The Armed Forces of the Philippines, through its Chief of Staff, shall
guarantee the security of the president and his family as approved by
the
national military and police authority (Vice President).
5.
It is to be noted that the Senate will open the second envelope in
connection
with the alleged savings account of the President in the Equitable PCI
Bank in accordance with the rules of the Senate, pursuant to the
request
to the Senate President.’
Our
deal
We
bring out, too, our discussion draft which reads:
The
undersigned parties, for and in behalf of their respective principals,
agree and undertake as follows:
‘1.
A transition will occur and take place on Wednesday, 24 January 2001,
at
which time President Joseph Ejercito Estrada will turn over the
presidency
to Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
2.
In return, President Estrada and his families are guaranteed security
and
safety of their person and property throughout their natural lifetimes.
Likewise, President Estrada and his families are guaranteed freedom
from
persecution or retaliation from government and the private sector
throughout
their natural lifetimes.
This
commitment shall be guaranteed by the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(‘AFP’)
through the Chief of Staff, as approved by the national military and
police
authorities – Vice President (Macapagal).
3.
Both parties shall endeavor to ensure that the Senate siting as an
impeachment
court will authorize the opening of the second envelope in the
impeachment
trial s proof that the subject savings account does not belong to
President
Estrada.
4.
During the five-day transition period between 20 January 2001 and 24
January
2001 (the “Transition Period”), the incoming Cabinet members shall
receive
an appropriate briefing from the outgoing Cabinet officials as part of
the orientation program.
During
the Transition Period, the AFP and the Philippine National Police
(‘PNP’)
shall function under Vice President (Macapagal) as national military
and
police authorities.
Both
parties hereto agree that the AFP chief of staff and PNP director
general
shall obtain all the necessary signatures as affixed to this agreement
and insure faithful implementation and observance thereof.
Vice
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo shall issue a public statement in
form
and tenor provided in ‘Annex A’ heretofore attached to this agreement.’”[89]
The second round of negotiation cements the reading that the petitioner
has resigned. It will be noted that during this second round of
negotiation,
the resignation of the petitioner was again treated as a given
fact.
The only unsettled points at that time were the measures to be
undertaken
by the parties during and after transition period.
According to Secretary Angara, the draft agreement which was premised
on
the resignation of the petitioner was further refined. It was
then
signed by their side and he was ready to fax it to General Reyes and
Senator
Pimentel to await the signature of the United Opposition.
However,
the signing by the party of the respondent Arroyo was aborted by her
oath-taking.
The Angara Diary narrates the fateful events,viz:[90]
“x
x x
"11:00
a.m. – Between General Reyes and myself, there is affirm agreement on
the
five points to effect a peaceful transition. I can hear the
general
clearing all these points with a group he is with. I hear voices in the
background.
"Agreement
"The
agreement starts: 1. The President shall resign today 20
January
2001, which resignation shall effective on 24 January 2001, on which
day
the Vice President will assume the presidency of the Republic of the
Philippines
"x
x x
The
rest of the agreement follows:
2.
The transition process for the assumption of the new administration
shall
commence on 20 January 2001, wherein persons designated by the Vice
President
to various government positions shall start orientation activities with
incumbent officials.
3.
The Armed Forces of the Philippines through its Chief of Staff Shall
guarantee
the safety and security of the President and his families throughout
their
natural lifetimes ad approved by the national military and police
authority
– Vice President.
4.
The AFP and the Philippine National Police (‘PNP’) shall
function
under the Vice Presidents national military and police authorities.
5.
Both parties request the impeachment court to open the second envelope
in the impeachment trial, the contents of which shall be offered as
proof
tat the subject savings account does not belong to the President.
The
Vice President shall issue a public statement in the form and tenor
provided
for in Annex ‘B’ heretofore attached to this agreement.
x
x x
11:20
a.m. – I am all set to fax General Reyes and Nene Pimentel our
agreement,
signed by our side and awaiting the signature of the United Opposition.
And
then it happens. General Reyes call me to say that the Supreme Court
has
decided that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is President and will be sworn in
at 12 noon.
‘Bakit
hindi naman kayo nakahintay? Paano na ang agreement (Why couldn’t you
wait?
What about the agreement)?’ I asked.
Reyes
answered: ‘Wala na, sir (It’s over, sir).’
I
asked him: ‘Di yung transition period, moot and academic na?’
And
General Reyes answer: ‘Oo nga, i-delete na natin, sir
(Yes,
we’re deleting that part).’
Contrary
to subsequent reports, I do nor react and say that there was a double
cross.
But
I immediately instruct Macel to delete the first provision on
resignation
since this matter is already moot and academic. Within moments,
Macel
erases the first provision and faxes the documents, which have been
signed
by myself, Dondon and Macel to Nene Pimentel and General Reyes.
I
direct Demar to rush the original document to General Reyes for the
signatures
of the other side, as it is important that the provision on security,
at
least, should be respected.
I
then advise the President that the Supreme Court has ruled that Chief
Justice
Davide will administer the oath to Gloria at 12 noon.
The
president is too stunned for words.
Final
meal
12
noon – Gloria takes her oath as President of the Republic of the
Philippines.
12:20
p.m. – The PSG distributes firearms to some people inside the compound.
The
President is having his final meal at the Presidential Residence with
the
few friends and Cabinet members who have gathered.
By
this time, demonstrators have already broken down the first line of
defense
at Mendiola. Only the PSG is there to protect the Palace, since
the
police and military have already withdrawn their support for the
President.
1
p.m. – The President’s personal staff is rushing to pack as many of the
Estrada family’s personal possessions as they can.
During
lunch, Ronie Puno mentions that the President need to release a final
statement
before leaving Malacañang.
The
statement reads: ‘at twelve o’clock noon today, Vice President
Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo took her oath as President of the Republic of the
Philippines.
While along with many other legal minds of our country, I have strong
and
serious doubts about the legality and constitutionality of her
proclamation
as president, I do not wish to be a factor that will prevent the
restoration
of unity and order in our civil society.
It
is for this reason that I now leave Malacañang Palace, the seat
of the presidency of this country, for the sake of peace and in order
to
begin with the healing process of our nation. I have the Palace
of
our people with gratitude for the opportunities given to me for service
to our people. I will not shrik from any future challenges that
may
come ahead in the same service of our country.
I
call on all my supporters and followers to join me in the promotion of
a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity.
May
the Almighty bless our country and our beloved people.
MABUHAY!’”
It was curtain time for the petitioner.
In sum, we hold that the resignation of the petitioner cannot be
doubted.
It was confirmed by his leaving Malacañang. In the press
release
containing his final statement, (1) he acknowledged the oath-taking of
the respondent as President of the Republic albeit with the 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 the Palace
due
to any kind of inability and he was going to re-assume the presidency
as
soon as the disability disappears; (3) he expressed his gratitude to
the
people for the opportunity to serve them. Without doubt, he was
referring
to the past opportunity given him to serve the people as President; (4)
he assured that he will not shreik from any future challenge that may
come
ahead in the same service of our country. Petitioner’s reference
is to a future challenge after occupying the office of’ the president
which
he has given up; and (5) he called on his supporters to join him in the
promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and
solidarity.
Certainly, the national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity could
not
be attained if he did not give up the presidency. The press
release
was petitioner’s valedictory, his final act of farewell. His presidency
is now in the past tense.
It is, however, urged that the petitioner did not resign but only took
a temporary leave of absence due to his inability to govern. In support
of this thesis, the letter dated January 20, 2001 of the petitioner
sent
to Senate President Pimentel and Speaker Fuentebella is cited.
Again,
we refer to the said letter, viz:
To say the least, the above letter is wrapped in mystery.[91]
The pleadings filed by the
petitioner
in the cases at bar did not discuss, nay, even intimate, the
circumstances
that led to its preparation. Neither did the counsel of the
petitioner
reveal to the Court these circumstances during the oral argument.
It strikes the Court as strange that the letter, despite its legal
value,
was never referred to by the petitioner during the week-long
crisis.
To be sure, there was not the slightest hint of its existence when he
issued
his press release. It was all too easy for him to tell the
Filipino
people in his press release that he was temporarily unable to govern
and
that he was leaving the reins of government to respondent Arroyo for
the
time being. Under any circumstance, however, the mysterious
letter
cannot negate the resignation of the petitioner. If it was
prepared
before the press release of the petitioner clearly showing his
resignation
from the presidency, then the resignation must prevail as a later
act.
If, however, it was prepared after the press release, still, it
commands
scant legal significance. Petitioner’s resignation from the
presidency
cannot be the subject of a changing caprice nor of a whimsical will
especially
if the resignation is the result of his repudiation by the
people.
There is another reason why this Court cannot give any legal
significance
to petitioner’s letter and this shall be discussed in issue number III
of this Decision.
After petitioner contended that as a matter of’ fact he did not resign,
he also argues that he could not resign as a matter of law. He
relies
on Section 12 of R.A.
No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
which allegedly prohibits his resignation, viz:
“Sec. 12. No public
officer shall be allowed to resign or retire pending an investigation,
criminal or administrative, or pending a prosecution against him, for
any
offense under this act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal
Code
on bribery.”
A reading of the legislative history of R.A.
No. 3019 will hardly provide any comfort to the petitioner. R.A.
No. 3019 originated from Senate Bill No. 293. The original
draft
of the bill, when it was submitted to the Senate, did not contain a
provision
similar to Section 12 of the law as it now stands. However, in
his
sponsorship speech, Senator Arturo Tolentino, the author of the bill, “reserved
to propose during the period of amendments the inclusion of a provision
to the effect that no public official who is under prosecution for any
act of graft or corruption, or is under administrative investigation,
shall
be allowed to voluntarily resign or retire.”[92]
During the period of amendments, the following provision was
inserted
as Section 15:
“Sec.
15. Termination of office. - No public official shall be allowed to
resign
or retire pending an investigation, criminal or administrative, or
pending
a prosecution against him, for any offense under the Act or under the
provisions
of the Revised
Penal Code on bribery.
The
separation or cessation of a public official from office shall not be a
bar to his prosecution under this Act for an offense committed during
his
incumbency.”[93]
The bill was vetoed by then President Carlos P. Garcia who questioned
the
legality of the second paragraph of the provision and insisted that the
President’s immunity should extend even after his tenure.
Senate Bill No. 571, which was substantially similar to Senate Bill No.
293, was thereafter passed. Section 15 above became Section 13 under
the
new bill, but the deliberations on this particular provision mainly
focused
on the immunity of the President which was one of tine reasons for the
veto of the original bill. There was hardly any debate on the
prohibition
against the resignation or retirement of a public official with pending
criminal and administrative cases against him. Be that as it may,
the intent of the law ought to be obvious. It is to prevent the
act
of resignation or retirement from being used by a public official
as a protective shield to stop the investigation of a pending criminal
or administrative case against him and to prevent his Prosecution under
the Anti-Graft
Law or prosecution for bribery under the Revised
Penal Code. To be sure, no person can be compelled to render
service for that 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 resign. Nevertheless, if at the time he resigns or
retires,
a public official is facing administrative or criminal investigation or
prosecution, such resignation or retirement will not cause the
dismissal
of the criminal or administrative proceedings against him. He
cannot
use his resignation or retirement to avoid prosecution.
There is another reason why petitioner’s contention should be rejected.
In the cases at bar, the records show that when petitioner resigned on
January 20, 2001, the cases filed against him before the Ombudsman were
OMB Case Nos. 0-00-1629, 0-00-1755, 0-00-1756, 0-00-1757 and 0-00-1758.
While these cases have been filed, the respondent Ombudsman refrained
from
conducting the preliminary investigation of the petitioner for the
reason
that as the sitting President then, petitioner was immune from
suit.
Technically, the said cases cannot be considered as pending for the
Ombudsman
lacked jurisdiction to act on them, Section 12 of R.A.
No. 3019 cannot therefore be invoked by the petitioner for it
contemplates
of cases whose investigation or prosecution do not suffer from any
insuperable
legal obstacle like the immunity from suit of a sitting President.
Petitioner contends that the impeachment proceeding is an
administrative
investigation that, under Section 12 of R.A.
3019, bars him from resigning. We hold otherwise. The
exact
nature of an impeachment proceeding is debatable, But even
assuming arguendo that it is an administrative proceeding, it
cannot
be considered pending at the time petitioner resigned because the
process
already broke down when a majority of the senator-judges voted against
the opening of the second envelope, the public and private prosecutors
walked out, the public prosecutors filed their Manifestation of
Withdrawal
of Appearance, and the proceedings were postponed indefinitely.
There
was, in effect, no impeachment case pending against petitioner when he
resigned.
III
Whether
or not the petitioner is only temporarily unable to act as President.
We shall now tackle the contention of the petitioner that he is merely
temporarily unable to perform the powers and duties of the presidency,
and hence is a President on leave, As aforestated, the inability claim
is contained in the January 20, 2001 letter of petitioner sent on the
same
day to Senate President Pimentel and Speaker Funtebella.
Petitioner postulates that respondent Arroyo as Vice President has no
power
to adjudge the inability of the petitioner to discharge tine powers and
duties of the presidency. His significant submittal is that
“Congress
has the ultimate authority under the Constitution
to determine whether the President is incapable of performing his
functions
in the manner provided for in Section 11 of Article VII.”[95]
This contention is the centerpiece of petitioner’s stance that he
is a President on leave and respondent Arroyo is only an Acting
President.
An examination of section 11, Article VII is in order. It
provides:
“SEC.
11. Whenever the President transmit to the President of the
Senate
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration
that he is tillable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,
and
until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such
powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting
President.
Whenever
a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President
of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their
written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the
powers
and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume
the
powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter,
when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no
inability exists, he shall reassume the powers and duties of his
office.
Meanwhile, should a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit
within five days to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of
the
House of Representatives their written declaration that the President
is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Congress
shall
decide the issue. For that purpose, the Congress shall convene,
if
it is not in session, within forty-eight hours, in a