LA BUGAL-B’LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION INC. VS.
DENR In view of the alleged impending injury, petitioners also have standing to
SECRETARY G.R. No. 127882, January 27 2004
FACTS:
On July 25, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order
(E.O.) No. 279 authorizing the DENR Secretary to accept, consider and
evaluate proposals from foreign-owned corporations or foreign investors
for contracts or agreements involving either technical or financial
assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of
minerals, which, upon appropriate recommendation of the Secretary, the
President may execute with the foreign proponent.
On March 3, 1995, President Fidel V. Ramos approved R.A. No. 7942 to
“govern the exploration, development, utilization and processing of all
mineral resources.”
On April 9, 1995, R.A. No. 7942 took effect. But shortly before the
effectivity of R.A. No. 7942, (March 30th), the President entered into
an Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) with WMC
Philippines, Inc. (WMCP) covering 99,387 hectares of land in South
Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Davao del Sur and North Cotabato.
Subsequently, DENR Secretary Victor O. Ramos issued DENR
Administrative Order (DAO) No. 95-23, s. 1995, otherwise known as the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7942 which was also later
repealed by DAO No. 96-40, s. 1996.
Petitioners claim that the DENR Secretary acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction in signing and promulgating DENR Administrative Order No.
96-40 implementing Republic Act No. 7942, the latter being
unconstitutional.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the requisites for judicial review are present to raise the
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7942.
HELD:
When an issue of constitutionality is raised, this Court can exercise its
power of judicial review only if the following requisites are present:
(1) The existence of an actual and appropriate case;
(2) A personal and substantial interest of the party raising the
constitutional question;
(3) The exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest
opportunity; and
(4) The constitutional question is the lis mota (cause of the suit) of
the case.
Respondents claim that the first three requisites are not present. Section
1, Article VIII of the Constitution states that “judicial power includes the
duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable.” The power of judicial
review, therefore, is limited to the determination of actual cases and
controversies.
An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that
is appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory,
lest the decision of the court would amount to an advisory opinion. The
power does not extend to hypothetical questions since any attempt at
abstraction could only lead to dialectics and barren legal questions and to
sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities.
“Legal standing” or locus standi has been defined as a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will
sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged, alleging more than a generalized grievance. The gist of the
question of standing is whether a party alleges “such personal stake in the
outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which
sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for
illumination of difficult constitutional questions.” Unless a person is
injuriously affected in any of his constitutional rights by the operation of
statute or ordinance, he has no standing.
Petitioners traverse a wide range of sectors. Among them are La Bugal
B‟laan Tribal Association, Inc., a farmers and indigenous people‟s
cooperative organized under Philippine laws representing a community
actually affected by the mining activities of WMCP, members of said
cooperative, as well as other residents of areas also affected by the mining
activities of WMCP. These petitioners have standing to raise the
constitutionality of the questioned FTAA as they allege a personal and
substantial injury. They claim that they would suffer “irremediable
displacement” as a result of the implementation of the FTAA allowing
WMCP to conduct mining activities in their area of residence. They thus
meet the appropriate case requirement as they assert an interest adverse
to that of respondents who, on the other hand, insist on the FTAA‟s
validity.
assail the validity of E.O. No. 279, by authority of which the FTAA was
executed.
Public respondents maintain that petitioners, being strangers to the FTAA,
cannot sue either or both contracting parties to annul it. In other words,
they contend that petitioners are not real parties in interest in an action for
the annulment of contract.
Public respondents‟ contention fails. The present action is not merely one
for annulment of contract but for prohibition and mandamus. Petitioners
allege that public respondents acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in
implementing the FTAA, which they submit is unconstitutional. As the case
involves constitutional questions, the Court is not concerned with whether
petitioners are real parties in interest, but with whether they have legal
standing.
Misconstruing the application of the third requisite for judicial review – that
the exercise of the review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity – WMCP
points out that the petition was filed only almost two years after the
execution of the FTAA, hence, not raised at the earliest opportunity.
The third requisite should not be taken to mean that the question of
constitutionality must be raised immediately after the execution of the
state action complained of. That the question of constitutionality has not
been raised before is not a valid reason for refusing to allow it to be raised
later. A contrary rule would mean that a law, otherwise unconstitutional,
would lapse into constitutionality by the mere failure of the proper party to
promptly file a case to challenge the same.
La Bugal-B'Laan Tribal Assn vs Ramos Case Digest
Facts :
On July 25, 1987, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive
Order (E.O.) No. 2796 authorizing the DENR Secretary to accept, consider
and evaluate proposals from foreign-owned corporations or foreign
investors for contracts or agreements involving either technical or financial
assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of
minerals, which, upon appropriate recommendation of the Secretary, the
President may execute with the foreign proponent.
On March 3, 1995, then President Fidel V. Ramos approved R.A. No. 7942
to "govern the exploration, development, utilization and processing of all
mineral resources." R.A. No. 7942 defines the modes of mineral
agreements for mining operations, outlines the procedure for their filing
and approval, assignment/transfer and withdrawal, and fixes their terms.
Similar provisions govern financial or technical assistance agreements.
On April 9, 1995, 30 days following its publication on March 10, 1995 in
Malaya and Manila Times, two newspapers of general circulation, R.A. No.
7942 took effect. Shortly before the effectivity of R.A. No. 7942, however,
or on March 30, 1995, the President entered into an FTAA with WMCP
covering 99,387 hectares of land in South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat,
Davao del Sur and North Cotabato.
On August 15, 1995, then DENR Secretary Victor O. Ramos issued DENR
Administrative Order (DAO) No. 95-23, s. 1995, otherwise known as the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7942. This was later
repealed by DAO No. 96-40, s. 1996 which was adopted on December 20,
1996.
On January 10, 1997, counsels for petitioners sent a letter to the DENR
Secretary demanding that the DENR stop the implementation of R.A. No.
7942 and DAO No. 96-40, giving the DENR fifteen days from receipt to act
thereon. The DENR, however, has yet to respond or act on petitioners'
letter.
Petitioners claim that the DENR Secretary acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction.
They pray that the Court issue an order:
(a) Permanently enjoining respondents from acting on any application for
Financial or Technical Assistance Agreements;
(b) Declaring the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 or Republic Act No. 7942 as
unconstitutional and null and void;
(c) Declaring the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Philippine
Mining Act contained in DENR Administrative Order No. 96-40 and all other
similar administrative issuances as unconstitutional and null and void; and
(d) Cancelling the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement issued to
Western Mining Philippines, Inc. as unconstitutional, illegal and null and
void.
Issue :
 between the government and WMCP be declared unconstitutional on
Whether or not Republic Act No. 7942 is unconstitutional. ground that they allow fully foreign owned corporations like WMCP to
exploit, explore and develop Philippine mineral resources in contravention
Ruling : of Article XII Section 2 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Charter.
The Court finds the following provisions of R.A. No. 7942 to be violative of In January 2001, WMC – a publicly listed Australian mining and exploration
Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution and hereby declares company – sold its whole stake in WMCP to Sagittarius Mines, 60% of
unconstitutional and void: which is owned by Filipinos while 40% of which is owned by Indophil
Resources, an Australian company. DENR approved the transfer and
(1) The proviso in Section 3 (aq), which defines "qualified person," to wit: registration of the FTAA in Sagittarius„ name but Lepanto Consolidated
Provided, That a legally organized foreign-owned corporation shall be assailed the same. The latter case is still pending before the Court of
deemed a qualified person for purposes of granting an exploration permit, Appeals.
financial or technical assistance agreement or mineral processing permit. EO 279, issued by former President Aquino on July 25, 1987, authorizes
the DENR to accept, consider and evaluate proposals from foreign owned
(2) Section 23, which specifies the rights and obligations of an exploration corporations or foreign investors for contracts or agreements involving
permittee, insofar as said section applies to a financial or technical wither technical or financial assistance for large scale exploration,
assistance agreement, development and utilization of minerals which upon appropriate
recommendation of the (DENR) Secretary, the President may execute with
(3) Section 33, which prescribes the eligibility of a contractor in a financial the foreign proponent. WMCP likewise contended that the annulment of the
or technical assistance agreement; FTAA would violate a treaty between the Philippines and Australia which
provides for the protection of Australian investments.
(4) Section 35, which enumerates the terms and conditions for every
financial or technical assistance agreement;
ISSUES:
(5) Section 39, which allows the contractor in a financial and technical
assistance agreement to convert the same into a mineral production- 1. Whether or not the Philippine Mining Act is unconstitutional for allowing
sharing agreement; fully foreign-owned corporations to exploit the Philippine mineral
resources. 2. Whether or not the FTAA between the government and
(6) Section 56, which authorizes the issuance of a mineral processing WMCP is a ―service contract that permits fully foreign owned companies
permit to a contractor in a financial and technical assistance agreement; to exploit the Philippine mineral resources.
The following provisions of the same Act are likewise void as they are
dependent on the foregoing provisions and cannot stand on their own:
HELD:
(1) Section 3 (g), which defines the term "contractor," insofar as it applies
to a financial or technical assistance agreement.
First Issue: RA 7942 is Unconstitutional
RA 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 is unconstitutional for
Section 34, which prescribes the maximum contract area in a financial or
technical assistance agreements; permitting fully foreign owned corporations to exploit the Philippine natural
resources.
Article XII Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution retained the Regalian
Section 36, which allows negotiations for financial or technical assistance
Doctrine which states that ―All lands of the public domain, waters,
agreements;
minerals, coal, petroleum, and other minerals, coal, petroleum, and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber,
Section 37, which prescribes the procedure for filing and evaluation of
wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the
financial or technical assistance agreement proposals;
State. The same section also states that, ―the exploration and
Section 38, which limits the term of financial or technical assistance development and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full
control and supervision of the State.
agreements;
Conspicuously absent in Section 2 is the provision in the 1935 and 1973
Constitution authorizing the State to grant licenses, concessions, or leases
Section 40, which allows the assignment or transfer of financial or
for the exploration, exploitation, development, or utilization of natural
technical assistance agreements;
resources. By such omission, the utilization of inalienable lands of the
public domain through license, concession or lease is no longer allowed
Section 41, which allows the withdrawal of the contractor in an FTAA;
under the 1987 Constitution.
The second and third paragraphs of Section 81, which provide for the
Under the concession system, the concessionaire makes a direct equity
Government's share in a financial and technical assistance agreement; and
investment for the purpose of exploiting a particular natural resource
Section 90, which provides for incentives to contractors in FTAAs insofar as within a given area. The concession amounts to complete control by the
concessionaire over the country„s natural resource, for it is given exclusive
it applies to said contractors;
and plenary rights to exploit a particular resource at the point of
extraction.
When the parts of the statute are so mutually dependent and connected as
The 1987 Constitution, moreover, has deleted the phrase ―management
conditions, considerations, inducements, or compensations for each other,
or other forms of assistance in the 1973 Charter. The present Constitution
as to warrant a belief that the legislature intended them as a whole, and
now allows only ―technical and financial assistance. The management and
that if all could not be carried into effect, the legislature would not pass
the operation of the mining activities by foreign contractors, the primary
the residue independently, then, if some parts are unconstitutional, all the
feature of the service contracts was precisely the evil the drafters of the
provisions which are thus dependent, conditional, or connected, must fall
1987 Constitution sought to avoid.
with them.
The constitutional provision allowing the President to enter into FTAAs is
an exception to the rule that participation in the nation„s natural resources
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
is reserved exclusively to Filipinos. Accordingly, such provision must be
construed strictly against their enjoyment by non-Filipinos. Therefore, RA
LA BUGAL B’LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION INC., et. al. v. V. O. 7942 is invalid insofar as the said act authorizes service contracts.
RAMOS, Secretary Department of Environment and Natural Although the statute employs the phrase ―financial and technical
Resources; H. RAMOS, Director, Mines and Geosciences Bureau agreements in accordance with the 1987 Constitution, its pertinent
(MGB-DENR); R. TORRES, Executive Secretary; and WMC provisions actually treat these agreements as service contracts that grant
(PHILIPPINES) INC. beneficial ownership to foreign contractors contrary to the fundamental
law.
The underlying assumption in the provisions of the law is that the foreign
The constitutional provision allowing the President to enter into FTAA is a contractor manages the mineral resources just like the foreign contractor
exception to the rule that participation in the nation‟s natural resources is in a service contract. By allowing foreign contractors to manage or operate
reserved exclusively to Filipinos. Provision must be construed strictly all the aspects of the mining operation, RA 7942 has, in effect, conveyed
against their enjoyment by non-Filipinos. beneficial ownership over the nation„s mineral resources to these
RA 7942 (The Philippine Mining Act) took effect on April 9, 1995. Before contractors, leaving the State with nothing but bare title thereto.
the effectivity of RA 7942, or on March 30, 1995, the President signed a The same provisions, whether by design or inadvertence, permit a
Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) with WMCP, a circumvention of the constitutionally ordained 60-40% capitalization
corporation organized under Philippine laws, covering close to 100,000 requirement for corporations or associations engaged in the exploitation,
hectares of land in South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Davao del Sur and development and utilization of Philippine natural resources.
North Cotabato. On August 15, 1995, the Environment Secretary Victor When parts of a statute are so mutually dependent and connected as
Ramos issued DENR Administrative Order 95-23, which was later repealed conditions, considerations, inducements or compensations for each other
by DENR Administrative Order 96-40, adopted on December 20, 1996. as to warrant a belief that the legislature intended them as a whole, then if
Petitioners prayed that RA 7942, its implementing rules, and the FTAA some parts are unconstitutional, all provisions that are thus dependent,
conditional or connected, must fail with them. The Chief Executive is the official constitutionally mandated to
Under Article XII Section 2 of the 1987 Charter, foreign owned
“enter into agreements with foreign owned corporations.” On the
corporations are limited only to merely technical or financial assistance to
the State for large scale exploration, development and utilization of other hand, Congress may review the action of the President
minerals, petroleum and other mineral oils. once it is notified of “every contract entered into in accordance
Second Issue: RP Government-WMCP FTAA is a Service Contract with this [constitutional] provision within thirty days from its
The FTAA between he WMCP and the Philippine government is likewise
unconstitutional since the agreement itself is a service contract. execution.” In contrast to this express mandate of the President
Section 1.3 of the FTAA grants WMCP a fully foreign owned corporation, and Congress in the exploration, development and utilization
the exclusive right to explore, exploit, utilize and dispose of all minerals (EDU) of natural resources, Article XII of the Constitution is silent
and by-products that may be produced from the contract area. Section 1.2
of the same agreement provides that EMCP shall provide all financing, on the role of the judiciary. However, should the President and/or
technology, management, and personnel necessary for the Mining Congress gravely abuse their discretion in this regard, the courts
Operations. may -- in a proper case -- exercise their residual duty under
These contractual stipulations and related provisions in the FTAA taken
together, grant WMCP beneficial ownership over natural resources that Article VIII. Clearly then, the judiciary should not inordinately
properly belong to the State and are intended for the benefit of its citizens. interfere in the exercise of this presidential power of control over
These stipulations are abhorrent to the 1987 Constitution. They are the EDU of our natural resources.
precisely the vices that the fundamental law seeks to avoid, the evils that
it aims to suppress. Consequently, the contract from which they spring
must be struck down. Under the doctrine of separation of powers and due respect for
co-equal and coordinate branches of government, the Court must
La Bugal-B’Laan v. Ramos restrain itself from intruding into policy matters and must allow
G.R. No. 127882. the President and Congress maximum discretion in using the
December 1, 2004 resources of our country and in securing the assistance of foreign
groups to eradicate the grinding poverty of our people and
Facts:
answer their cry for viable employment opportunities in the
country. “The judiciary is loath to interfere with the due exercise
The Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus before the Court
by coequal branches of government of their official functions.” As
challenges the constitutionality of (1) Republic Act 7942 (The
aptly spelled out seven decades ago by Justice George Malcolm,
Philippine Mining Act of 1995); (2) its Implementing Rules and
“Just as the Supreme Court, as the guardian of constitutional
Regulations (DENR Administrative Order [DAO] 96-40); and (3)
rights, should not sanction usurpations by any other department
the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) dated
of government, so should it as strictly confine its own sphere of
30 March 1995, executed by the government with Western
influence to the powers expressly or by implication conferred on
Mining Corporation (Philippines), Inc. (WMCP).
it by the Organic Act.” Let the development of the mining
industry be the responsibility of the political branches of
On 27 January 2004, the Court en banc promulgated its Decision,
government. And let not the Court interfere inordinately and
granting the Petition and declaring the unconstitutionality of
unnecessarily. The Constitution of the Philippines is the supreme
certain provisions of RA 7942, DAO 96-40, as well as of the entire
law of the land. It is the repository of all the aspirations and
FTAA executed between the government and WMCP, mainly on
hopes of all the people.
the finding that FTAAs are service contracts prohibited by the
1987 Constitution. The Decision struck down the subject FTAA for
The Constitution should be read in broad, life-giving strokes. It
being similar to service contracts,[9] which, though permitted
should not be used to strangulate economic growth or to serve
under the 1973 Constitution, were subsequently denounced for
narrow, parochial interests. Rather, it should be construed to
being antithetical to the principle of sovereignty over our natural
grant the President and Congress sufficient discretion and
resources, because they allowed foreign control over the
reasonable leeway to enable them to attract foreign investments
exploitation of our natural resources, to the prejudice of the
and expertise, as well as to secure for our people and our
Filipino nation.
posterity the blessings of prosperity and peace. The Court fully
sympathize with the plight of La Bugal B‟laan and other tribal
The Decision quoted several legal scholars and authors who had
groups, and commend their efforts to uplift their communities.
criticized service contracts for, inter alia, vesting in the foreign
However, the Court cannot justify the invalidation of an otherwise
contractor exclusive management and control of the enterprise,
constitutional statute along with its implementing rules, or the
including operation of the field in the event petroleum was
nullification of an otherwise legal and binding FTAA contract. The
discovered; control of production, expansion and development;
Court believes that it is not unconstitutional to allow a wide
nearly unfettered control over the disposition and sale of the
degree of discretion to the Chief Executive, given the nature and
products discovered/extracted; effective ownership of the natural
complexity of such agreements, the humongous amounts of
resource at the point of extraction; and beneficial ownership of
capital and financing required for large-scale mining operations,
our economic resources. According to the Decision, the 1987
the complicated technology needed, and the intricacies of
Constitution (Section 2 of Article XII) effectively banned such
international trade, coupled with the State‟s need to maintain
service contracts. Subsequently, Victor O. Ramos (Secretary,
flexibility in its dealings, in order to preserve and enhance our
Department of Environment and Natural Resources [DENR]),
country‟s competitiveness in world markets. On the basis of this
Horacio Ramos (Director, Mines and Geosciences Bureau [MGB-
control standard, the Court upholds the constitutionality of the
DENR]), Ruben Torres (Executive Secretary), and the WMC
Philippine Mining Law, its Implementing Rules and Regulations -
(Philippines) Inc. filed separate Motions for Reconsideration.
insofar as they relate to financial and technical agreements - as
well as the subject Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement
Issue:
(FTAA).

Whether or not the Court has a role in the exercise of the power
of control over the EDU of our natural resources?

Held:
effect, no impeachment case pending against the petitioner when Congress in passing such provision is merely to prevent public officials
he resigned. Case Digest of Estrada vs. Desierto (March 2, 2001) from escaping liability to stop pending investigation. It does not apply to
Petitioner: Joseph E. Estrada petitioner.
Respondents: Aniano Desierto (GR#146710-15) et al. and Gloria 3) The law states that Congress has the sole authority to say whether a
Macapagal-Arroyo (GR#146738) President is incapable of performing the duties required of him of his
Nature: Petition to question the legitimacy of the assumption as President office. Given the resolutions passed by Congress immediately after GMA‟s
of the Republic of the Philippines by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. oath-taking and the fact that both houses filed bills signed by GMA into
Ponente: Justice Puno law, the Court recognizes that petitioner‟s inability to perform was
Facts: permanent and also, the Court would have no jurisdiction to change the
The court looked at the events that occurred prior and immediately after decision already done by Congress on his capacity as President.
the oath-taking of respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (to be referred to 4) Regarding immunity from suit, history shows us that the framers of the
in the rest of the digest as GMA) as president of the Republic of the 1987 Constitution did not retain the 1973 Constitution provision on
Philippines (RP). executive immunity. Also, the Impeachment court has become functus
On 11 May 1998, petitioner Joseph E. Estrada (will subsequently be officio. It is, then, untenable for petitioner to demand that he should first
referred to as Erap) was elected as President of RP with GMA as his vice- be impeached and then convicted before he can be prosecuted.
President. By the late 2000, word spread of Erap‟s alleged involvement in 5) As for a prejudicial publicity, this would not apply to the present case.
jueteng and his receiving jueteng money as “Jose Pidal”. Erap quickly loses Case law will tell us that a right to a fair trial and the free press are
popularity among different social groups and public officials, even high incompatible. They‟re essentially unrelated. Also, since our justice system
ranking members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the does not use the jury system, the judge, who is a learned and legally
Philippine National Police (PNP), started defecting from his agendas. And enlightened individual, cannot be easily manipulated by mere publicity.
because of the jueteng scandal, an impeachment proceeding started on 7 The Court also said that petitioner did not present enough evidence to
December 2000. Upon its resumption in January, however, a vote of 11-10 show that the publicity given the trial has influenced the judge so as to
against the opening of the second envelope which allegedly contained render the judge unable to perform. Finally, the Court said that the cases
evidence showing Erap as Jose Velarde with P3.3billion in secret bank against petitioner were still undergoing preliminary investigation, so the
account cut short the impeachment trial as prosecutors walked out and publicity of the case would really have no permanent effect on the judge
joined the rallying of people in the streets of Manila. and that the prosecutor should be more concerned with justice and less
Amidst the pressure, Erap proposed snap elections, which he is not to run with prosecutuion.
as candidate, to regain stability in the country but such a move did little to
quell the “wave” against him. Two rounds of negotiations were held Case Digest: Joseph Estrada vs. Aniano Disierto
between Erap‟s camp and that of GMA in the early hours of 20 January
2001 and at 12nn of the same day, GMA took her oath as RP president.
Both houses of Congress acknowledged her presidency, as well as the G.R. No. 146710-15 02 March 2001
international community. Erap, on the other hand, left Malacanang and is
now faced with legal action against him by the Office of the Ombudsman FACTS:
among other things.
After the sharp descent from power of Chavit Singson, he went on air and
Issues: accused the petitioner of receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords.
Calls for resignation filled the air and former allies and members of the
1) Whether the petitions present a justiciable controversy
President‟s administration started resigning one by one. In a session on
2) Whether petitioner Estrada resigned as President November 13, House Speaker Villar transmitted the Articles of
3) If the petitions are justiciable, whether petitioner Estrada is a President Impeachment signed by 115 representatives or more than 1/3 of all the
on leave while respondent Arroyo is an acting President members of the House to the Senate. The impeachment trial formally
4) Whether conviction in the impeachment proceedings is a condition opened which is the start of the dramatic fall from power of the President,
precedent for the criminal prosecution of petitioner Estrada which is most evident in the EDSA Dos rally. On January 20, the President
submitted two letters – one signifying his leave from the Palace and the
5) Whether petioner‟s prosecution should be enjoined on the ground of
other signifying his inability to exercise his powers pursuant to Section
prejudicial publicity
11, Article VII of the Constitution. Thereafter, Arroyo took oath as
President of the Philippines.
Held:
1) Yes ISSUES:
2) Yes, impliedly
3) No 1. Whether the petitioner resigned as President; and
4) No 2. Whether the impeachment proceedings bar the petitioner from
5) No resigning

Ratio Decidendi:
1) While the 1987 EDSA People Power Movement is considered by the
Court as a non-justiciable event, EDSA 2, as it has come to be known, is
very much different from the 1987 EDSA People Power Movement (EDSA
1). EDSA 1 is extra-constitutional, hence, there would be no legal basis if
such an event was put to the courts. EDSA 2, on the other hand, is intra-
constitutional as it is based on the constitutionally protected rights of
freedom of speech and assembly. Even in GMA‟s oath-taking ceremony,
she categorically swore to preserve and defend the 1987 Constitution.
2) The Court used a “Totality Test” as an “authoritative window” to
ascertain petitioner Estrada‟s state of mind on this issue. On reading the
then Executive Secretary Angara‟s diary published in the Philippine Daily
Inquirer, the Court held that petitioner impliedly resigned because 1) he
did not want to be a candidate in the proposed snap elections, 2) he did
not object to Senator Pimentel‟s “dignified exit” proposal, and 3) on Erap
saying that he only had 5 days to a week left to stay in the Palace. Also,
from what the court eventually calls his “resignation letter”, Erap 1)
acknowledged GMA‟s oath-taking as President, 2) he did not mention any
intent on re-assuming his position as President, and 3) his gratitude in the
letter is on a past opportunity he served as President.
On his defense, Erap cites sec. 12 of Republic Act 3019 which states that a
public officer cannot resign pending legal action, in this case the
impeachment trial. A reading of history tells the Court that the intention of
RULING:
1. For a resignation to be legally valid, there must be an intent to resign
and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment which may
be oral or written, express or implied, for as long as the resignation is
clear. In the press release containing his final statement, he
acknowledged the oath-taking of Arroyo as President; he emphasized
he was leaving the Palace without the mention of any inability and
intent of reassumption; he expressed his gratitude to the people; he
assured will not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead
in the same service of the country. This is of high grade evidence of
his intent to resign.
2. Petitioner‟s contention that the impeachment proceeding is an
administrative investigation that, under section 12 of RA 3019, bars
him from resigning is not affirmed by the Court. The exact nature of
an impeachment proceeding is debatable. But even assuming
arguendo that it is an administrative proceeding, it cannot be
considered pending at the time petitioner resigned because the
process already broke down when a majority of the senator-judges
voted against the opening of the second envelope, the public and
private prosecutors walked out, the public prosecutors filed their
Manifestation of Withdrawal of Appearance, and the proceedings were
postponed indefinitely. There was, in