MARCOS vs.

MANGLAPUS
G.R. No. 88211
October 27, 1989

Motion for Reconsideration

Supreme Court En Banc

FACTS:
1. The Court dismissed the initial petition filed by the parties (Marcos vs. Manglapus, September 15, 1989).
2. On September 28, 1989, former President Marcos died in Honolulu, Hawaii.
3. A statement was issued by President Aquino stating that the remains of said former president will not be
allowed to be brought to the country, until the current or future administration decides otherwise.
4. On October 2, 1989, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the petitioner. (Note that the motion was
filed after the death of Ferdinand Marcos).

ISSUE:
Whether or not the President has the power to bar the return former president and his family to the country
considering:
Petitioners’ contention –
(1) to bar President Marcos and his family from returning to the Philippines is to deny them not only
of the inherent right of citizens to return to their country of birth but also the protection of the
Constitution and all of the rights guaranteed to Filipinos under the Constitution;
(2) the President has no power to bar a Filipino from his own country; if she has, she had exercised
it arbitrarily.
(Moreover, the death of the former president is a supervening event that changes the basis of
the decision rendered by the Court on September 15, 1989.)
Respondents’ contention (through the Solicitor General) –
(1) motion for reconsideration is moot and academic as to the deceased Mr. Marcos;
(2) The “formal” rights being invoked by the Marcoses under the label “right to return”, including
the label “return of Marcos’ remains” is in reality or substance a “right” to destabilize the country,
a “right” to hide the Marcoses’ incessant shadowy orchestrated efforts at destabilization.

RULING:
Yes, the President has the power to bar the return of the Marcoses to the country.
Under the U.S. Constitution which the Philippines have patterned the distribution of powers among three
separate branches, it is recognized that the President has powers other than those stated in the
Constitution (residual powers).
In this case, the President has the power to bar the return of the Marcoses when it is justified that such event
would be a threat to the nation especially because the Philippines is still recovering from what it has
suffered under the Marcos regime.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1:
“Contrary to petitioners’ view, it cannot be denied that the President, upon whom executive power is
vested, has unstated residual powers which are implied from the grant of executive power and which are
necessary for her to comply with her duties under the Constitution. The powers of the President are not
limited to what are expressly enumerated in the article on the Executive Department and in scattered
provisions of the Constitution. This is so, notwithstanding the avowed intent of the members of the
Constitutional Commission of 1986 to limit the powers of the President as a reaction to the abuses under
the regime of Mr. Marcos, for the result was a limitation of specific powers of the President, particularly
those relating to the commander-in-chief clause, but not a diminution of the general grant of executive
power.”
 FORBES, etc., vs. CHUOCO TIACO and CROSSFIELD
G.R. No. L-6157
July 30, 1910
Nature of the case: ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. (to secure a writ of prohibition).
Ponente: Johnson, J.

FACTS:
1. This is an original action commenced in this court to secure a writ of prohibition against Hon. A.S.
Crossfield, as one of the judges of the Court of First Instance – Manila, to prohibit him from taking or
continuing jurisdiction in a certain case commenced and PENDING before him in which Chuoco Tiaco
(defendant herein) is plaintiff, and W. Cameron Forbes, J.E. Harding, and C.R. Trowbridge (plaintiffs
herein) are defendants.
2. The plaintiffs are:
(a) W. Cameron Forbes – Governor-General of the Philippine Islands
(b) J.E. Harding – Chief of Police
(c) C.R. Trowbridge – Chief of the Secret Service of Manila
3. Defendants are:
(a) A.S. Crossfield – one of the judges of the Court of First Instance – Manila
(b) Chuoco Tiaco – foreigner of Chinese nationality and a resident of the Philippines for the last 35
years, has a family in the country and some properties
4. In the first case where Chuoco Tiaco is the plaintiff, he filed a case for DAMAGES (monetary) alleging
that defendants forcibly deported the plaintiff to China and forcibly prevented his return for some months
in violation of the right of the said plaintiff herein to be and to remain in the Philippine Islands as
established by law.
5. Crossfield, one of the defendants herein, then issued an inhibition against Forbes, et. al, from spelling or
deporting or threatening to expel of deport Chuoco Tiaco.
6. Forbes, et. al, now filed the instant case for writs of prohibition against the defendants herein.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Governor-General, as Chief Executive, can be sued in a civil action. Commented [Office1]: Note, this case was filed in 1910.
Plaintiffs’ contention –
They have been deprived of liberty without due process of law.
Defendants’ contention –
The said expulsion was carried out in the public interest and at the request of the proper
representative of the Chinese government in the Philippines, and was immediately reported to the
Secretary of War.

RULING:
No, the Governor-General cannot be sued in a civil action.
The United States Government never intended to create in the Philippine Islands a Government without giving
it adequate power to preserve itself and to protect the highest interests of the people of the Archipelago.
No one can be held legally responsible in damages, or otherwise, for doing in a legal manner what he had
authority under the law to do.
In this case, the Governor-General had authority, under the law, to deport or expel the defendants, and the
circumstance justifying the deportation and the method of carrying it out are left to him. He cannot,
therefore, be held liable in damages for the exercise of such power.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1:
“Generally the duties of the chief executive authority of the State are defined by a constitution or by a
law. There are certain inherent powers, however, vested in the chief executive authority of the State
which are universally denominated political, which may or may not be defined either by the constitution
or by law. These inherent powers would continue to exist f or the preservation of the life and integrity of
the State and the peace and quietude of its people, even though the constitution were destroyed and
every letter of the statutes were repealed. This must necessarily be true, or, otherwise, the hands of the
chief executive authority of the Government might, at times, be paralyzed in his efforts to maintain the
existence of the Government.”
 SOLIVEN vs. JUDGE MAKASIAR
G.R. No. L-82585, L-82827
November 14, 1988

Nature of the case: PETITION for certiorari and prohibition to review the decision of RTC – Manila, Br. 35
Per Curiam

FACTS:
1. This includes two consolidated cases.
2. Beltran, one of the petitioners, together with others was charged for libel by President Corazon Aquino. Commented [Office2]: Second case.
The President filed the complaint-affidavit herself against him and the others.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the President of the Philippines, under the Constitution, may initiate criminal proceedings
against the petitioners through filing of a complaint-affidavit.
Petitioners’ contention –
The reasons which necessitate presidential immunity from suit impose a correlative disability to file
suit.
Respondents’ contention –
The said privilege of immunity from suit may be invoked only by the holder of the office, not by any
other person in the President’s behalf.

RULING:
Yes, the President may initiate criminal proceedings through filing a complaint-affidavit.
The privilege of immunity from suit is inherent in the President’s power in order to assure the exercise of
Presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance or distraction, considering that being the Chief
Executive of the Government is a job that, aside from requiring all of the office-holder’s time, also demands
undivided attention. Commented [Office3]: Legal Basis: Residual powers of the
The privilege of immunity from suit, pertains to the President by virtue of the office and may be invoked only executive power granted to the President.
by the holder of the office; not by any other person in the President’s behalf.
Thus, in this case, the accused in a criminal case in which the President is a complainant cannot raise the
presidential privilege as a defense to prevent the case from proceeding against such accused. Moreover,
there is nothing in our laws that would prevent the President from waiving the Privilege.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1:
“The rationale for the grant to the President of the privelege of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise
of Presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance or distraction, considering that being the
Chief Executive of the Government is a job that, aside from requiring all of the office-holder's time, also
demands undivided attention. But this privilege of immunity from suit, pertains to the President by virtue
of the office and may be invoked only by the holder of the office; not by any other person in the President's
behalf. Thus, an accused in a criminal case in which the President is complainant cannot raise the
presidential privilege as a defense to prevent the case from proceeding against such accused. Moreover,
there is nothing in our laws that would prevent the President from waiving the privilege. Thus, if so minded
the President may shed the protection afforded by the privilege and submit to the court's jurisdiction. The
choice of whether to exercise the privilege or to waive it is solely the President's prerogative. It is a
decision that cannot be assumed and imposed by any other person.”
 ESTRADA vs. DESIERTO
G.R. Nos. 146710-15
March 2, 2001

Nature of the case: PETITION to question the legitimacy of the assumption as President of the PH by
Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Ponente: Puno, J.

FACTS:
1. In 1998, Joseph Estrada was elected President of the PH, while Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was elected
Vice-President. The President was accused with corruption, culminating in Ilocos Sur Governor Chavit
Singson’s accusations that the president received millions of pesos from jueteng lords. Commented [Office4]: IMPORTANT
2. The Senate and the HoR began early investigations regarding the accusation, while key socio-political
figures like Cardinal Sin, former Presidents Aquino and Ramos, the vice president, senior advisers and
cabinet members called on the president to resign, and resigned from their cabinet posts themselves.
3. The impeachment trial began on December 7,2000, with21 senator-judges presided over by Chief ustice
Hilario Davide. At a point when 11 senator-judges ruled against opening a second envelope of evidence
showing the president’s P3.3 billion bank account under the name “Jose Velarde”, the public prosecutors
resigned and a mass demonstration at EDSA began.
4. With the defection of more officials and of the army and police from the Estrada administration, the
president attempted to appease public sentiment by announcing a snap election and by allowing the
second envelope to be opened. The measures failed, and the calls for resignation strengthened. Commented [Office5]: IMPORTANT
5. In January 2001, the president negotiated with representatives of the vice-president News broke out that Commented [Office6]: This negotiation includes giving
Chief Justice Hilario Davide would administer the oath of presidency to the vice president at EDSA Shrine. Estrada one week (from Arroyo’s oathtaking date) to
6. Estrada issued two statements – (1) stating reservations on the constitutionality of Arroyo’s presidency, prepare his exit from Malacanang, and security assistance to
and (2) stating that he is incapable of dispensing responsibilities as president, thus allowing Arroyo to be be given to him and his family even after exiting his office.
the acting president. Commented [Office7]: IMPORTANT
7. The Arroyo administration was met with acceptance by the different branches of government, by majority
of the public, and by the international community. The impeachment trial was closed.
8. The Office of the Ombudsman proceeded to file a series of cases regarding the corruption of Estrada.
Estrada filed a motion compelling the Ombudsman to refrain from further proceedings until his term as
president was over. He also filed a petition to be confirmed as the lawful and incumbent president,
temporarily unable to fulfill his duties, thus making Arroyo an acting president only. Commented [Office8]: IMPORTANT

ISSUE: - from syllabus: immunity from suit

Whether or not the petitioner can invoke immunity from suit.
Petitioners’ contention –
He is merely temporarily unable to perform the powers and duties of the presidency, and hence
is a President on leave. Nevertheless, he is still the lawful and incumbent president.
Respondents’ contention –
The petitioner is no longer the incumbent President, as having resigned from his office due to being
involved in a political scandal.

RULING:
No, petitioner, former President Estrada, cannot invoke immunity from suit.
Under Sec. 11 (1), Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution, “Whenever the President transmits to the President of the
Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the
contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President.”
In this case, it is sufficiently established that former President Estrada had already resigned from his office,
hence, he cannot invoke immunity from suit by saying that current President Arroyo is only an Acting
President.
 ESTRADA vs. DESIERTO
G.R. Nos. 146710-15
March 2, 2001

HOW WAS PRESIDENT ESTRADA’S RESIGNATION ESTABLISHED?

“The issue then is whether the petitioner resigned as President or should be considered resigned as of
January 20, 2001 when respondent took her oath as the 14th President of the Republic. Resignation is not
a high level legal abstraction. It is a factual question and its elements are beyond quibble: there must be
an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment. The validity of a resignation
is not governed by any formal requirement as to form. It can be oral. It can be written. It can be express. It
can be implied. As long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect.”

TOTALITY TEST
“In the cases at bar, the facts show that petitioner did not write any formal letter of resignation before he
evacuated Malacanang Palace in the afternoon of January 20, 2001 after the oathtaking of respondent
Arroyo. Consequently, whether or not petitioner resigned has to be determined from his acts and omissions
before, during and after January 20, 2001 or by the totality of prior, contemporaneous and posterior facts
and circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on the issue. Using this totality test, we hold that
petitioner resigned as President.
In sum, we hold that the resignation of the petitioner cannot be doubted. It was confirmed by his leaving
Malacãnang. In the press release containing his final statement, (1) he acknowledged the oath-taking of
the respondent as President of the Republic albeit with reservation about its legality; (2) he emphasized
he was leaving the Palace, the seat of the presidency, for the sake of peace and in order to begin the
healing process of our nation. He did not say he was leaving the Palace due to any kind of inability and
that he was going to re-assume the presidency as soon as the disability disappears; (3) he expressed his
gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them. Without doubt, he was referring to the past
opportunity given him to serve the people as President; (4) he assured that he will not shirk from any future
challenge that may come ahead in the same service of our country. Petitioner’s reference is to a future
challenge after occupying the office of the president which he has given up; and (5) he called on his
supporters to join him in the promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity.
Certainly, the national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity could not be attained if he did not give up the
presidency. The press release was petitioner’s valedictory, his final act of farewell. His presidency is now
in the past tense.”