Facts: In the May 11, 1998 elections, petitioner Joseph Estrada was elected Pres ident while respondent

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was elected Vice-President. From the beginning of his term, however, petitioner was plagued by problems that slow ly eroded his popularity. On October 4, 2000, Ilocos Sur Governor Chavit Singson , a longtime friend of the petitioner, accused the petitioner, his family and fr iends of receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords. The expose immediately i gnited reactions of rage. On November 13, 2000, House Speaker Villar transmitted the Articles of Impeachment signed by 115 representatives or more than 1/3 of a ll the members of the House of Representatives to the Senate. On November 20, 20 00, the Senate formally opened the impeachment trial of the petitioner. On Janua ry 16, 2001, by a vote of 11-10, the senator-judges ruled against the opening of the second envelope which allegedly contained evidence showing that petitioner held P3.3 billion in a secret bank account under the name Jose Velarde. The ruling was met by a spontaneous outburst of anger that hit the streets of the metropol is. Thereafter, the Armed Forces and the PNP withdrew their support to the Estra da government. Some Cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and bureau chiefs resigned from their posts. On January 20, 2001, at about 12 noon, Chief Justice Davide administered the oat h to respondent Arroyo as President of the Philippines. On the same day, petitio ner issued a press statement that he was leaving Malacanang Palace for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of the nation. It also appear ed that on the same day, he signed a letter stating that he was transmitting a d eclaration that he was unable to exercise the powers and duties of his office an d that by operation of law and the Constitution, the Vice-President shall be the Acting President. A copy of the letter was sent to Speaker Fuentebella and Sena te President Pimentel on the same day. After his fall from the power, the petitioner s legal problems appeared in cluster s. Several cases previously filed against him in the Office of the Ombudsman wer e set in motion. Issues: (1) Whether or not the petitioner resigned as President (2) Whether or not the petitioner is only temporarily unable to act as President Held: Petitioner denies he resigned as President or that he suffers from a perma nent disability. Resignation is a factual question. In order to have a valid resignation, there m ust be an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishm ent. 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. In the cas es at bar, the facts show that petitioner did not write any formal letter of res ignation before leaving Malacanang Palace. Consequently, whether or not petition er resigned has to be determined from his acts and omissions before, during and after Jan. 20, 2001 or by the totality of prior, contemporaneous and posterior f acts and circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on the issue. The Court had an authoritative window on the state of mind of the petitioner provide d by the diary of Executive Sec. Angara serialized in the Phil. Daily Inquirer. During the first stage of negotiation between Estrada and the opposition, the to pic was already about a peaceful and orderly transfer of power. The resignation of the petitioner was implied. During the second round of negotiation, the resig nation of the petitioner was again treated as a given fact. The only unsettled p oints at that time were the measures to be undertaken by the parties during and after the transition period. The Court held that the resignation of the petition er cannot be doubted. It was confirmed by his leaving Malacanang. In the press r

elease containing his final statement, (1) he acknowledged the oath-taking of th e respondent as President of the Republic, but with the reservation about its le gality; (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 the nation. He did not say he was leaving the Palace due to any kind of inability and that h e was going to reassume the presidency as soon as the disability disappears; (3) he expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them; (4) he assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in the same service of the country; and (5) he called on his supporters to join him in the promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and so lidarity. The Court also tackled the contention of the petitioner that he is merely tempor arily unable to perform the powers and duties of the presidency, and hence is a President on leave. The inability claim is contained in the Jan. 20, 2001 letter of petitioner sent to Senate Pres. Pimentel and Speaker Fuentebella. Despite sa id letter, the House of Representatives passed a resolution supporting the assum ption into office by Arroyo as President. The Senate also passed a resolution co nfirming the nomination of Guingona as Vice-President. Both houses of Congress h ave recognized respondent Arroyo as the President. Implicitly clear in that reco gnition is the premise that the inability of petitioner Estrada is no longer tem porary. Congress has clearly rejected petitioner s claim of inability. The Court c annot pass upon petitioner s claim of inability to discharge the powers and duties of the presidency. The question is political in nature and addressed solely to Congress by constitutional fiat. It is a political issue which cannot be decided by the Court without transgressing the principle of separation of powers. DECISION: I No. The case is legal not political. II No. He is not a president on leave. III No. The impeachment proceedings was already aborted. As a non-sitting presid ent, he is not entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution IV There is not enough evidence to warrant this Court to enjoin the preliminary investigation of the petitioner by the respondent Ombudsman.