SEPARATE OPINION
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
I concur in the result of
the Decision of the Court.
Petitioner Joseph E.
Estrada does not ask for restoration to the Office of The President. He does not seek the ouster and exclusion of
respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from the position. He merely prays for a decision declaring that she is holding the
presidency only in an acting capacity.
He states that he is willing to give up the claimed presidency provided,
however, that the termination of his term as President is done in the manner
provided by law.
The sought-for judicial
intercession is not for petitioner Estrada alone. Respondent Arroyo claims she is the de jure
President and that petitioner Estrada has pro tanto passed
into history, ousted and legitimately replaced by her. She asserts that any attempt to revert
petitioner to the presidency is an exercise in futility.
However, the vehemence
and passion of her comment and the arguments of her counsel during the hearing
on the petition leave lingering apprehension on the legal contestability of her
claim to the presidency.
I am, therefore,
constrained to write this separate opinion to express my views on the basic
issue of whether or not petitioner Estrada resigned as President of the
Philippines.
The facts which led to
the transfer of power, while manuevered to suit the conclusions desired by
either party, are not in serious dispute.
It is in their interpretation where both parties are continents apart.
Serious charges were
leveled against petitioner Estrada involving culpable violation of the
Constitution, bribery, graft and corruption and betrayal of public trust.
The charges, initiated
and prosecuted by the House of Representatives, were heard by the Senate, with
the Chief Justice as Presiding Officer, in an impeachment trial. The proceedings were covered in their
entirety by live television and radio and attracted the widest, most intense,
and riveted attention ever given to any TV or radio program. Trial, heated and acrimonious, but at times
entertaining, was proceeding as provided in the Constitution when, on January
16, 2001, it was abruptly suspended.
The impeachment session was thrown into turmoil when the Senate, by a
vote of 11-10, decided against the opening of an envelope which, the
prosecution insisted, contained vital evidence supporting the charges but which
the defense wanted suppressed being inadmissible and irrelevant. Pandemonium broke out in the impeachment
court. The contending parties, the
audience, and even the senator-judges gave vent to their respective feelings
and emotions.
The event was God-sent to
petitioner Estrada’s opponents.
Earlier, opposition leaders and the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic
Church had led street marches and assemblies in key Metro Manila centers
demanding his resignation or ouster.
Protest actions were staged at the same area in EDSA where the “People
Power Revolution” of the 1986 was centered.
The withdrawal of support
by top defense and military officers, resignations of certain cabinet officers,
public defections to the protesters’ cause by other key government officials,
and an everswelling throng at EDSA followed in swift succession.
The constitutional
process of removal is through impeachment.
In fact, the proceedings for the impeachment of petitioner Estrada were
underway when an incident concerning the opening of an envelope aborted the
process. The proceedings were
terminated, preventing him from presenting his defenses.
Respondent Arroyo invoked
petitioner’s resignation as a reason for her to be sworn in as President. She vigorously asserts that petitioner
Estrada acknowledged his permanent disability to govern; and that his statement
that he was leaving Malacañang Palace for the sake of peace and the healing
process is a confirmation of his resignation.
It is a cardinal
principle in Public Officers Law that a resignation must be voluntary and
willingly.[1] It must also be express and definite. A resignation even if clear and unequivocal,
if made under duress, is voidable and may be repudiated.
There can be no question
that the so-called resignation of petitioner Estrada is not expressed in clear
terms. There is no single instance when
he stated he was resigning. But the
events prior to his departure from Malacañang telecast nationwide constrained
him to step down from the Presidency.
The sight of thousands of students and left-leaning groups marching
towards Malacañang and the presence there of then AFP Chief of Staff Angelo
Reyes clearly indicate that petitioner had no option but to leave.
Anybody who watched the
events on live television leading to petitioner Estrada’s hurried departure in
a motor launch away from the hordes marching from EDSA to Malacañang could
declare without hesitation that he was faced with imminent danger to his life and
family. Even viewers as far as Mindanao
in the South or Batanes in the North undoubtedly felt the duress, coercion, and
threat of impending violence. Indeed,
it is safe to conclude that he was compelled to “resign” or to leave the
Presidency.
However, the legality or
illegality of petitioner’s so called resignation has been laid to rest by the
results that have taken place.
Respondent Arroyo immediately took her oath as President of the Republic of the Philippines before Chief
Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. On
January 24, 2001, the House of Representatives issued House Resolution No. 175
expressing its full support to her administration. Likewise, twelve members of the Senate signed a Resolution
recognizing and expressing support to the new government and of president
Arroyo. Moreover, the international
community has likewise recognized the legitimacy of her government.
Under the circumstances,
this Court has to declare as a fact what in fact exists. Respondent Gloria Macapagal – Arroyo is the de
jure President of the Republic of the Philippines.