Post

Joseph Ejercito Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.

Posted
By Anonymous
7 min read
Joseph Ejercito Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.

Case Title and Citation

Joseph Ejercito Estrada, petitioner, vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan [Special Division], Hon. Minita Chico-Nazario, Hon. Edilberto Sandoval, Hon. Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, and The People of the Philippines, respondents.
G.R. No. 159486-88, November 25, 2003
Supreme Court - En Banc
Ponente: Per Curiam

Facts

  • Joseph Ejercito Estrada filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, through counsel Alan F. Paguia, challenging resolutions of the Sandiganbayan Special Division and seeking dismissal of Criminal Cases No. 26558, No. 26565 and No. 26905 for lack of jurisdiction.
  • Petitioner sought:
    1. disqualification of members of the Supreme Court under Rule 5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct for attending the EDSA 2 rally and for authorizing the assumption of Vice-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to the Presidency on January 20, 2001;
    2. vacatur of the assailed Sandiganbayan resolutions; and
    3. dismissal of the pending Sandiganbayan criminal cases.
  • On May 19, 2003, Attorney Paguia filed an Omnibus Motion before the Sandiganbayan asking inter alia that appointment of counsel de officio be declared functus officio and that he be notified of subsequent proceedings; petitioner also moved to dismiss the criminal cases.
  • On May 30, 2003, petitioner introduced portions of Justice Artemio Panganiban’s book Reforming the Judiciary as evidence.
  • On June 9, 2003, petitioner moved to prove the “truth” of statements in Justice Panganiban’s book and requested subpoenas ad testificandum and duces tecum for several justices and public officials concerning events of January 20, 2001.
  • Petitioner alleged bias by the three justices of the Sandiganbayan Special Division during hearings, citing alleged disrespectful remarks by Presiding Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario and comments by Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro.
  • On July 2, 2003, the Sandiganbayan issued an order denying the Omnibus Motion and motion to dismiss; petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for disqualification (filed July 14, 2003).
  • On July 25 and July 28, 2003 (promulgated July 30, 2003), the Sandiganbayan denied the motion for disqualification and denied the motion for reconsideration, respectively.
  • Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by Petition for Certiorari.
  • On September 23, 2003, the Court issued a resolution dismissing the petition for certiorari for insufficiency in substance and lack of grave abuse of discretion, and ordered Attorney Alan Paguia to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for conduct unbecoming a lawyer.
  • On October 10, 2003, Atty. Paguia filed his compliance repeating his allegations against the Court.
  • The Court analyzed Canon (Rule) 5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Section 79(b) of the Omnibus Election Code (definition of “partisan political activity”), Rule 13.02 and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and prior admonitions issued to Atty. Paguia (including a July 8, 2003 warning).
  • The Court concluded that attendance by justices at official state functions (e.g., oath-taking, State of the Nation Address) did not constitute partisan political activity under the statutory definition and found no grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan.
  • The Court found Atty. Paguia’s repeated public accusations and forum-shopping tendencies to be violative of the lawyer’s duty to respect the courts and of Rule 13.02; it indefinitely suspended Alan F. Paguia from the practice of law, effective upon receipt of the resolution, and directed distribution of the resolution to the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts.
  • Concurrence: Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concur. Carpio, J., took no part.

Issues

  1. Should the Supreme Court justices be disqualified under Rule 5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct for attending the EDSA 2 rally and for authorizing Vice-President Arroyo’s assumption to the presidency?
  2. Should the assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan Special Division be vacated and set aside?
  3. Should the pending Criminal Cases No. 26558, No. 26565 and No. 26905 before the Sandiganbayan be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction?
  4. Should Attorney Alan F. Paguia be sanctioned for his public statements and conduct regarding the case?

Ruling

  1. No - The Court found no basis to disqualify the justices under Rule 5.10 for attending EDSA 2 or for participating in official functions related to the assumption of the presidency.
  2. No - The petition to vacate and set aside the Sandiganbayan resolutions was dismissed for gross insufficiency in substance and lack of grave abuse of discretion.
  3. No - Dismissal of the pending criminal cases for lack of jurisdiction was not warranted; the extraordinary writ of certiorari was not meritorious.
  4. Yes - Attorney Alan F. Paguia is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

  • On disqualification (Issue 1): The Court construed Rule 5.10 (Canon 5.10) together with Section 79(b) of the Omnibus Election Code, finding that “partisan political activities” are acts designed to promote the election or defeat of a candidate in an election. Attendance by justices at official state functions (e.g., the incoming President’s oath, State of the Nation Address) are traditional official duties and do not amount to partisan political activity as defined by statute; therefore, participation in such official acts does not ipso facto disqualify them under Rule 5.10.
  • On vacatur of Sandiganbayan resolutions and dismissal of criminal cases (Issues 2 and 3): The Court emphasized the extraordinary nature of certiorari under Rule 65 and the requirement of showing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The petition failed to demonstrate that the Sandiganbayan committed such grave abuse. The Court noted that final judgments and rulings (including Estrada v. Arroyo) had settled the issues concerning the legality of the presidential assumption, and petitioner improperly sought to relitigate those matters.
  • On sanctioning counsel (Issue 4): The Court relied on Canon 11 and Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to maintain respect for courts and refrain from public statements that may arouse public opinion for or against a party in pending cases. Atty. Paguia repeatedly made public accusations impugning the impartiality and integrity of justices, persisted after a prior warning from the Court (July 8, 2003), and engaged in conduct the Court viewed as forum shopping and obstructionist to the administration of justice. Given the persistence and public nature of his accusations, the Court concluded suspension for conduct unbecoming a lawyer was warranted and issued an indefinite suspension, effective upon receipt.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

  • Attendance by judges or justices at official state functions does not, by itself, constitute “partisan political activity” under Section 79(b) of the Omnibus Election Code; Canon 5.10 must be read in that statutory context.
  • Certiorari under Rule 65 is extraordinary and requires proof of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; mere disagreement with factual or legal conclusions is insufficient.
  • Lawyers must refrain from public statements that tend to arouse public opinion for or against a party in a pending case (Rule 13.02); persistent, unfounded public attacks on the judiciary may constitute conduct unbecoming a lawyer and warrant disciplinary sanctions.
  • Prior admonitions by the Court to counsel are relevant in assessing culpability for continued improper conduct.

Disposition

  • The Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 filed by Joseph Ejercito Estrada is DISMISSED for gross insufficiency in substance and lack of merit.
  • Attorney Alan F. Paguia is INDEFINITELY SUSPENDED from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt of this resolution, for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.
  • Copies of the resolution were ordered furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts of the land through the Office of the Court Administrator.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

  • Concurrence: Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concur.
  • Carpio, J., did not take part.

Significance / Notes

  • Clarifies the scope of Canon 5.10 vis-à-vis statutory definition of partisan political activity: presence at official state ceremonies is not automatically partisan.
  • Reinforces the high threshold for relief by certiorari (grave abuse of discretion) and discourages attempts to relitigate matters already settled by final judicial determination.
  • Affirms professional restrictions on lawyer conduct in public forums (Rule 13.02, Canon 11) and the disciplinary consequences of repeated unfounded public attacks on the judiciary.
  • Illustrates the Court’s approach to balancing respect for judicial independence with allowance for legitimate criticism, while imposing sanctions where criticism crosses into obstruction, forum shopping, or undermining public confidence without factual support.
Judicial Ethics Legal Ethics Disciplinary Cases Public Officers
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.