Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Faced with the problem of whether or not the time is right to allow the
Marcoses to return to the Philippines, the President is, under the
Constitution, constrained to consider these basic principles in arriving
at a decision. More than that, having sworn to defend and uphold the
Constitution, the President has the obligation under the Constitution
to protect the people, promote their welfare and advance the national
interest. It must be borne in mind that the Constitution, aside from
being an allocation of power is also a social contract whereby the
people have surrendered their sovereign powers to the State for the
common good. Hence, lest the officers of the Government exercising
the powers delegated by the people forget and the servants of the
people become rulers, the Constitution reminds everyone that
"[s]overeignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them." [Art. II, Sec. 1.]
What we are saying in effect is that the request or demand of the
Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be
considered in the light solely of the constitutional provisions
guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel, subject to certain
and defend the Constitution and to see the faithful execution the laws,
cannot shirk from that responsibility.
It also appears that on the same day, January 20, 2001, he signed
the following letter:
Sir:
By virtue of the provisions of Section 11, Article VII of the
Constitution, I am hereby transmitting this declaration that I am
unable to exercise the powers and duties of my office. By
operation of law and the Constitution, the Vice-President shall be
the Acting President.
(Sgd.) JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA
On January 22, this Court issued the following Resolution in
Administrative Matter No. 01-1-05-SC. The said resolution
confirmed the authority given by the 12 SC justices to the CJ
during the oath taking that happened on January 20. Soon, other
countries accepted the respondent as the new president of the
Philippines. 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. 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 nations goals under the
Constitution.
On February 6, respondent recommended Teofisto Guingona to be
the vice president. On February 7, the Senate adopted Resolution
82 which confirmed the nomination of Senator Guingona. On the
same day, the Senate passed Resolution No. 83 declaring that the
impeachment court is functus officio and has been terminated.
Several cases were filed against the petitioner which are as
follows: (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.
A special panel of investigators was forthwith created by the
respondent Ombudsman to investigate the charges against the
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 GR 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 Case 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 GR 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
The
round
of negotiations
In the Freedom constitution, it was stated that the Aquino Arroyo took the oath
of second
the 1987
Constitution.
She is were about the consolidating of
the clauses
wereunder
proposed
by both sides. The second round
government was instilled directly by the people in
discharging the authority
of thewhich
president
the 1987
of negotiation cements the reading that the petitioner has resigned.
defiance of the 1973 Constitution as amended.
constitution.
It will be noted that during this second round of negotiation, the
It is a well settled rule that the legitimacy of a government sired by
resignation of the petitioner was again treated as a given fact. The
a successful revolution by people power is beyond judicial scrutiny
only unsettled points at that time were the measures to be
for that government automatically orbits out of the constitutional
undertaken by the parties during and after the transition period.
loop. But this would not apply as the Court finds substantial
When everything was already signed by the side of the petitioner
difference between the 2 EDSA Revolutions. It would show that
and ready to be faxed by Angara, the negotiator for the respondent,
there are differences between the 2 governments set up by EDSA I
Angelo Reyes, called to Angara saying that the SC would allow
and II. This was further explained by the Court by comparing the 2
respondent to have her oath taking. Before petitioner left
EDSA Revolutions.
Malacanang, he made a last statement.
EDSA I
EDSA II
The statement reads: At twelve oclock noon today, Vice President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took her oath as President of the
Extra-constitutional. Hence, Xxx IN Intra-Constitutional. Hence, the
Republic of the Philippines. While along with many other legal
DEFIANCE OF THE 1973
oath of the respondent as
minds of our country, I have strong and serious doubts about the
CONSTITUTION, AS
President includes the protection
legality and constitutionality of her proclamation as president, I do
AMENDEDcannot be subject of and upholding of the 1987
not wish to be a factor that will prevent the restoration of unity and
judicial review
Constitution.resignation of
order in our civil society.
the President makes it subject to
It is for this reason that I now leave Malacaang Palace, the seat of
judicial review
the presidency of this country, for the sake of peace and in order to
exercise of the people power of
exercise of people power of
begin the healing process of our nation. I leave the Palace of our
revolutionwhich overthrew the whole freedom of speech and freedom
people with gratitude for the opportunities given to me for service
government
of assembly to petition the
to our people. I will not shrik from any future challenges that may
government for redress of
come ahead in the same service of our country.
grievances whichonly affected
I call on all my supporters and followers to join me in the
the office of the President
promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and
Political question
Legal Question
solidarity.
May the Almighty bless our country and our beloved people.
In this issue, the Court holds that the issue is legal and not
MABUHAY!
political.
By making such statement, petitioner impliedly affirms the
following: (1) he acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent
II. Whether or not petitioner resigned as President
as President of the Republic albeit with the reservation about its
Resignation is a factual question and its elements are beyond
legality; (2) he emphasized he was leaving the Palace, the seat of
quibble: there must be an intent to resign and the intent must be
the presidency, for the sake of peace and in order to begin the
coupled by acts of relinquishment. There is no required form of
healing process of our nation. He did not say he was leaving the
resignation. It can be expressed, implied, oral or written. It is true
Palace due to any kind of inability and that he was going to rethat respondent never wrote a letter of resignation before he left
assume the presidency as soon as the disability disappears; (3) he
Malacanang on June 20, 2001. In this issue, the Court would use
expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve
the totality test or the totality of prior, contemporaneous and
them. Without doubt, he was referring to the past
posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing a material
opportunity given him to serve the people as President; (4) he
relevance on the issue.
assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may
Using this test, the Court rules that the petitioner had resigned. The
come ahead in the same service of our country. Petitioners
Court knows the amount of stress that the petitioner had suffered.
reference is to a future challenge after occupying the office of the
With just a blink of an eye, he lost the support of the legislative
president which he has given up; and (5) he called on his
when then Manny Villar and other Representatives had defected.
supporters to join him in the promotion of a constructive national
AFP Chief of Staff General Angelo Reyes had already gone to
spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. Certainly, the national spirit
EDSA. PNP Chief Director General Panfilo Lacson and other
of reconciliation and solidarity could not be attained if he did not
cabinet secretaries had withdrawn as well. By looking into the
give up the presidency.
Angara diaries, it was pointed out that the petitioner had suggested
Petitioner however argues that he only took a temporary leave of
a snap election at May on which he would not be a candidate.
absence. This is evidenced by a letter which reads as follows:
Proposing a snap election in which he is not a candidate means that
Sir
he had intent to resign. When the proposal for a dignified exit or
By virtue of the provisions of Section II, Article VII of the
resignation was proposed, petitioner did not disagree but listened
Constitution, I am hereby transmitting this declaration that I am
closely. This is proof that petitioner had reconciled himself to the
unable to exercise the powers and duties of my office. By
reality that he had to resign. His mind was already concerned with
operation of law and the Constitution, the Vice President shall be
the five-day grace period he could stay in the palace. It was a
the Acting President.
matter of time.
(Sgd.) Joseph Ejercito Estrada
The negotiations that had happened were about a peaceful transfer
The Court was surprised that the petitioner did not use this letter
of power. It was already implied that petitioner would resign. The
during the week long crisis. It would be very easy for him to say
negotiations concentrated on the following: (1) the transition
before he left Malacanang that he was temporarily unable to
period of five days after the petitioners resignation; (2) the
govern, thus, he is leaving Malacanang. Under any circumstance,
guarantee of the safety of the petitioner and his family, and (3) the
however, the mysterious letter cannot negate the resignation of the
agreement to open the second envelope to vindicate the name of
petitioner. If it was prepared before the press release of the
the petitioner. Also taken from the Angara diaries, The President
petitioner clearly showing his resignation from the presidency, then
says. Pagod na pagod na ako. Ayoko na masyado nang masakit.
the resignation must prevail as a later act. If, however, it was
Pagod na ako sa red tape, bureaucracy, intriga. (I am very tired. I
prepared after the press release, still, it commands scant legal
dont want any more of this its too painful. Im tired of the red
significance.
tape, the bureaucracy, the intrigue.) I just want to clear my name,
Petitioner also argues that he could not resign. His legal basis is
then I will go. The quoted statement of the petitioner was a clear
RA 3019 which states:
evidence that he has resigned.
The RH Law violates the right to health and the right to protection
against hazardous products. The petitioners posit that the RH Law
provides universal access to contraceptives which are hazardous to
one's health, as it causes cancer and other health problems.36
The RH Law violates the right to religious freedom. The petitioners
contend that the RH Law violates the constitutional guarantee
respecting religion as it authorizes the use of public funds for the
procurement of contraceptives. For the petitioners, the use of public
funds for purposes that are believed to be contrary to their beliefs is
included in the constitutional mandate ensuring religious freedom.37
3.
a.) NO.
b.) YES.
c.) NO.
4. YES.
5. NO.
6. NO.
7. NO.
8. NO.
B. NO.
C. NO.
* RATIO:
1.) Majority of the Members of the Court believe that the question of
when life begins is a scientific and medical issue that should not be
decided, at this stage, without proper hearing and evidence.
However, they agreed that individual Members could express their
own views on this matter.
Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution states: The State recognizes
the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family
as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the
life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.
In its plain and ordinary meaning (a canon in statutory construction),
the traditional meaning of conception according to reputable
dictionaries cited by the ponente is that life begins at fertilization.
Medical sources also support the view that conception begins at
fertilization.
The framers of the Constitution also intended for (a) conception to
refer to the moment of fertilization and (b) the protection of the
unborn child upon fertilization. In addition, they did not intend to ban
all contraceptives for being unconstitutional; only those that kill or
destroy the fertilized ovum would be prohibited. Contraceptives that
actually prevent the union of the male sperm and female ovum, and
those that similarly take action before fertilization should be deemed
non-abortive, and thus constitutionally permissible.
The intent of the framers of the Constitution for protecting the life of
the unborn child was to prevent the Legislature from passing a
measure prevent abortion. The Court cannot interpret this otherwise.
The RH Law is in line with this intent and actually prohibits abortion.
By using the word or in defining abortifacient (Section 4(a)), the RH
Law prohibits not only drugs or devices that prevent implantation but
also those that induce abortion and induce the destruction of a fetus
inside the mothers womb. The RH Law recognizes that the fertilized
ovum already has life and that the State has a bounded duty to
protect it.
2.) Petitioners claim that the right to health is violated by the RH Law
because it requires the inclusion of hormonal contraceptives,
intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal, nonabortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies in
the National Drug Formulary and in the regular purchase of essential
medicines and supplies of all national hospitals (Section 9 of the RH
Law). They cite risks of getting diseases gained by using e.g. oral
contraceptive pills.
The respondents also failed to show that these provisions are least
intrusive means to achieve a legitimate state objective. The
Legislature has already taken other secular steps to ensure that the
right to health is protected, such as RA 4729, RA 6365 (The
Population Act of the Philippines) and RA 9710 (The Magna Carta of
Women).
program, it could very well be said that the program will be in line with
the religious beliefs of the petitioners.
6.) The RH Law does not violate the due process clause of the
Constitution as the definitions of several terms as observed by the
petitioners are not vague.
8.) The requirement under Sec. 17 of the RH Law for private and nongovernment health care service providers to render 48 hours of pro
bono RH services does not amount to involuntary servitude, for two
reasons. First, the practice of medicine is undeniably imbued with
public interest that it is both the power and a duty of the State to
control and regulate it in order to protect and promote the public
welfare. Second, Section 17 only encourages private and nongovernment RH service providers to render pro bono service.
Besides the PhilHealth accreditation, no penalty is imposed should
they do otherwise.