ESTRADA V. DESIERTO G.R. 146740-15 , March.
2, 2001
Doctrine:
• Presidential immunity was granted only during the term of the President in order to prevent
delay in actions on important matters by the Chief Executive due to litigations that may be
lodged against him. The said immunity does not apply beyond the term of the President.
Facts:
✓ In the May 11, 1998 elections, petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada was elected President while
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was elected Vice-President. 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.
✓ Several cases (in total of 6) 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 RA 7080;
and (6) OMB Case No. 0-00-1758 filed by Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr. on December 4, 2000 for
plunder, graft and corruption.
✓ After the people’s clamor in EDSA for him to resign from his position, Petitioner Joseph Estrada
issued a statement that he will be leaving the Malacañang Palace in order to have a peaceful
transition of power and start the healing of the nation warped by confusion due to his
impeachment trial. Nevertheless, he sent a letter to the Senate President and the Speaker of the
House stating that he is temporarily unable to perform the duties of the office of the President
and let then Vice-President Respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo assume the position of Acting
President.
✓ Later, the Office of the Ombudsman filed plunder and perjury charges against the Petitioner. A
special panel of prosecutors were assigned to investigate the charges against the Petitioner.
Thus, the Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition before the Supreme Court. He alleged that he
cannot be criminally charged by the Ombudsman on the ground of immunity from suit. He
claimed that he is still the President of the Philippines, and that Respondent is merely holding
the position in an acting capacity. Further, he claimed that he cannot be considered as to have
resigned because he is prohibited by law from resigning since he was under an investigation, i.e.
an impeachment trial.
Issue: Whether or not the Petitioner is immune from suit, and if so, up to what extent.
Ruling:
NO. The Court held that presidential immunity was granted only during the term of the President in
order to prevent delay in actions on important matters by the Chief Executive due to litigations that may
be lodged against him. The said immunity does not apply beyond the term of the President.
In the present case, the Petitioner cannot claim that he cannot be sued before the Ombudsman because
he was immune from suit. In fact, the Petitioner cannot cite any decision that the President has post-
tenure immunity from liability. Further, the Petitioner cannot claim that he is immune from suit because
he was not convicted by the Impeachment Court. To allow such situation will put a perpetual bar against
his prosecution, which were criminal in nature. Hence, the Petitioner is not immune from suit.
We now come to the scope of immunity that can be claimed by petitioner as a non-sitting President. The
cases filed against petitioner Estrada are criminal in character. They involve plunder, bribery and graft
and corruption. By no stretch of the imagination can these crimes, especially plunder which carries the
death penalty, be covered by the alleged mantle of immunity of a non-sitting president. Petitioner
cannot cite any decision of this Court licensing the President to commit criminal acts and wrapping him
with post-tenure immunity from liability. It will be anomalous to hold that immunity is an inoculation
from liability for unlawful acts and conditions. The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not
acts of the State and the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such but stands in the same footing as
any trespasser.
