Title
Estrada vs. Desierto
Case
G.R. No. 146710-15
Decision Date
Mar 2, 2001
Estrada resigned amid corruption allegations, mass protests, and military withdrawal; Arroyo assumed presidency, upheld by Supreme Court as constitutional.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 146710-15)

Petitioner

Joseph E. Estrada seeks declarations that he remains the lawful President (albeit on leave), challenges Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s assumption of office, and prays for injunctive relief against the Ombudsman’s criminal proceedings.

Respondents

• Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo – Claiming to be the duly sworn-in President of the Republic.
• Ombudsman Desierto and private complainants – Defending the conduct of graft and plunder investigations against Estrada.

Key Dates

• June 30, 1998 – Estrada and Arroyo begin six-year term.
• October 4–17, 2000 – Corruption exposés by Gov. Singson; mass calls for Estrada’s resignation.
• November 13, 2000 – House impeaches Estrada (115 signatures).
• December 7, 2000 – Impeachment trial opens in the Senate.
• January 16, 2001 – Senate trial halted by 11-10 vote refusing to open envelope; prosecution walks out.
• January 20, 2001 – Arroyo sworn in at EDSA Shrine; Estrada departs Malacañang.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution (post-1990 case) – Article II (sovereignty), Article VII (presidential succession, vacancy in the presidency, acting capacity, immunity), Article XI (public officers’ accountability), Article XVII (amendment process).
• RA No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) – No resignation pending investigation/prosecution.
• Political-question doctrine; executive immunity precedents (Forbes v. Tiaco, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, etc.); rules on injunctive relief in criminal matters.

Factual Background and People Power II

A cascade of corruption allegations led to coordinated Senate and House inquiries and an impeachment. When a critical evidentiary envelope remained sealed on January 16, public outrage reignited mass protests at EDSA (People Power II). Government officials, military and police chiefs withdrew support, and Estrada’s moral authority collapsed.

Impeachment Proceedings and Abrupt Termination

The Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, began trial December 7, 2000. On January 16, 2001, by 11-10 vote, senators refused to open the second envelope containing bank evidence. Public and private prosecutors walked out, Senate President Pimentel resigned, and the tribunal adjourned indefinitely.

Crisis of Governance and Transition Negotiations

Between January 19–20 intermediaries negotiated a peaceful handover: a transition period, security guarantees for Estrada and family, and opening of the sealed envelope. The deal collapsed when the Supreme Court confirmed Arroyo’s right to be sworn in as President at noon on January 20.

Resignation and Permanent Disability Analysis

Estrada issued a press statement leaving Malacañang “for the sake of peace” without reservation. He also sent written declarations to congressional leaders claiming inability to discharge presidential duties. The Court applied Article VII, Sections 8 and 11, interpreting permanent disability to include loss of moral and institutional support, validating succession by resignation and vacancy. Temporary leave arguments were rejected as inconsistent with the totality of events.

Constitutional Succession under Article VII

– Section 8: Vice-President becomes President upon death, permanent disability, removal, or resignation of the President.
– Section 11: Vice-President acts during written declaration of inability by the President or majority Cabinet certification, with Congress as final arbiter.
Estrada’s de facto “resignation” and permanent disablement triggered Section 8; Arroyo’s swearing-in was constitutionally grounded.

Judicial Doctrines on Political Questions and Justiciability

The Court rejected political-question defenses, distinguishing EDSA I (extra-constitutional revolution) from EDSA II (constitutional redress via free speech and assembly). Interbranch disputes over succession are within judicial review under Article VIII (grave abuse of discretion) and Marbury v. Madison principles.

Decision and




    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.