Digest Author: Cecille Mangaser

Atty Alicia Risos-Vidal v. Commission on Elections and Joseph Estrada

GR Number 206666
Petition: Petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 (Revised Rules of Court) and
Petition-in-intervention in view of the disqualification of private respondent
Petitioner: Atty Alicia Risos-Vidal
Petitioner-Intervenor: Alfredo S. Lim
Respondents: Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Joseph Ejercito Estrada
Ponente: Leonardo-De Castro, J.
Date: January 21, 2015
Facts:
On September 12, 2007 the Sandiganbayan convicted the private respondent, Joseph Estrada, for
the crime of plunder. On October 25, 2007, Gloria Arroyo extended executive clemency by way
of pardon. Private respondent received and accepted the pardon by affixing his signature beside
his written notation the next day.
On November 30, 2009 private respondent filed a Certificate of Candidacy for the position of
President. There were 3 oppositions to the candidacy. However, all petitions were effectively
dismissed on the grounds that: the Constitutional proscription on re-election applies to a sitting
president and the pardon granted to him restored his right to vote and be voted for public office.
After the May 2010 elections, Estrada only managed to garner the 2nd highest number of votes.
On October 2, 2012 he filed a Certificate of Candidacy for the position of the Mayor of City of
Manila. On January 24, 2013, the petitioner filed a disqualification petition against the
respondent on the theory that he is disqualified to run for public office because of his previous
conviction for plunder (relying on Section 40 of the LGC in relation to Section 12 of the OEC).
COMELEC dismissed the petition for disqualification. The subsequent motion for consideration
was also denied.
Hence, this petition.
Issues:
Whether or not COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in:
1. Holding that Estradas pardon was not conditional
2. Not finding that Estrada is disqualified to run as Mayor of Manila
3. Dismissing the petition for disqualification
4. Not ruling that Estradas pardon neither restored his right of suffrage nor remitted his
perpetual absolute disqualification from seeking public office
5. Not having exercised its power to motu proprio disqualify Estrada in the face of his
patent disqualification to run for public office because of his perpetual and absolute
disqualification to seek public office and to vote resulting from his criminal conviction
for plunder
Ruling:

Digest Author: Cecille Mangaser

1. No. The pardoning power of the President cannot be limited by a legislative action.
Section 19 of Article 7 and Section 5 of Article 9-C provides that the President possesses
the power to grant pardons, along with other acts of executive clemency. Any act of
Congress by way of statute cannot operate to delimit the pardoning power of the
President.
2. No. Article 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code should be construed in a way that will
give full effect to the executive clemency granted by the President. The pardon
granted admits no other interpretation other than that he regained FULL civil and political
rightsincluding the right to seek elective office.
3. No. Section 12 of the OEC allows any person who has been granted plenary pardon or
amnesty after conviction by final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude to
run for and hold any public office, whether local or national.
4. No. Pardon granted to Estrada was absolute in the absence of a clear, unequivocal, and
concrete factual basis upon which to anchor or support presidential intent to grant a
limited pardon.
5. No. The arguments forwarded by the petitioner failed to adequately demonstrate any
factual or legal bases to prove that the COMELEC resolution were issued in a whimsical,
arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to
perform a positive duty enjoined by law or were so patent and gross as to constitute grave
abuse of discretion.
Dispositive:
Petition for certiorari and petition-in-intervention are dismissed. Resolution of COMELEC 2 nd
Division and En Banc are affirmed.