Title
Risos-Vidal vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 206666
Decision Date
Jan 21, 2015
Former President Estrada, convicted of plunder, pardoned in 2007, regained eligibility to run for public office; Supreme Court upheld COMELEC's dismissal of disqualification petitions.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 154512)

Facts:

  • Conviction and Pardon
    • On September 12, 2007, the Sandiganbayan convicted former President Joseph E. Estrada of plunder (Crim. Case No. 26558) and imposed Reclusion Perpetua and accessory penalties, including perpetual absolute disqualification.
    • On October 25, 2007, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo granted him a pardon stating: “He is hereby restored to his civil and political rights,” and excepting forfeitures.
    • On October 26, 2007, Estrada accepted the pardon without qualification.
  • 2010 Disqualification Cases
    • Estrada filed his certificate of candidacy for President (Nov. 30, 2009), prompting three disqualification petitions (SPA 09-024, 09-028, 09-104).
    • COMELEC Second Division (Jan. 20, 2010) and En Banc (Apr./May 2010) dismissed all three on grounds that his pardon was absolute and restored suffrage and the right to hold public office.
    • Only the Pormento petition reached the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 191988) but was dismissed as moot after Estrada lost the May 10, 2010 elections.
  • 2013 Mayoral Bid and Petition
    • Estrada filed his certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Manila (Oct. 2, 2012).
    • On January 24, 2013, Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal filed a petition for disqualification (SPA 13-211) under Sec. 40, Local Government Code, in relation to Sec. 12, Omnibus Election Code, citing his conviction and supposed unremitted penalties.
    • The COMELEC Second Division (Apr. 1, 2013) and En Banc (Apr. 23, 2013) dismissed her petition, citing its prior 2010 rulings.
    • Estrada won the May 13, 2013 Manila mayoralty with 349,770 votes; incumbent Alfredo S. Lim obtained 313,764.
    • On June 7, 2013, Lim was allowed to intervene, filing a petition-in-intervention to have himself proclaimed mayor, reiterating Estrada’s disqualification theory.

Issues:

  • Procedural
    • Was Risos-Vidal’s petition to COMELEC timely and properly characterized?
    • Does Lim have a right to intervene?
    • Do the 2010 COMELEC disqualification rulings bar relitigation in 2013?
  • Substantive
    • Was Estrada’s pardon absolute or conditional?
    • Did it expressly restore his rights to vote and hold public office or remit his perpetual absolute disqualification (Arts. 36, 41 RPC)?
    • Is Estrada qualified to run for and hold the Manila mayoralty?
    • If Estrada is disqualified, should Lim be proclaimed mayor?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.