Supreme Court to decide who is legal President - ROSES AND THORNS by Alejandro R. Roces

Through his lawyer, former Sen. Rene Saguisag, deposed President Joseph Ejercito Estrada has elevated to the Supreme Court the question as to who is the de jure President of the Republic of the Philippines. He has not questioned the fact that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is the de facto president. The best proof is that he had asked her permission to leave the country for an eye operation and had to accept her decision that he could not leave the country because of the plunder case being filed against him.

In yesterday’s issue of Time, Estrada was quoted as saying, "I swear on my father’s grave that I never in my entire career in public life have I taken a single of taxpayer’s money. This I intend to prove but I never get my day in court." He now has every opportunity to prove his proclaimed innocence.

Because they had participated in roles or made previous statements that could be misconstrued as favoring the incumbency of President Macapagal-Arroyo, Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. and Justice Artemio Panganiban are voluntarily inhibiting themselves from participating in the hearing of the Estrada-Arroyo case. So the decision will be in the hands of 13, instead of 15 Supreme Court justices.

Upon presentation of his case, Estrada scored a victory. He succeeded in making Ombudsman Aniano Desierto temporarily stop action on the six criminal cases lodged against Estrada. This is the way we want all trials to be –according to the rule of law. Ombudsman Desierto, however, made it clear that Estrada bears the burden of the prosecution is just to prove that said deposits exist.

An interesting sidelight is the statement of Saguisag that he had agreed to defend Estrada on the condition that Estrada would formally tender his resignation if he wins the case. So what is the point of the whole case? Why doesn’t he just tender his formal resignation now? President Estrada claims that he is only on indefinite leave from the presidency. He has been quoted as saying that he has no intention of going back to power. If that is the case, then, he is on permanent leave.

Can it be that he does not want to let go of the presidency because of the immunity a president is said to enjoy while in position. That immunity from criminal suits should be classified. That law was passed to prevent presidents from being harassed by criminal suits while in office. But if you are on indefinite leave, a criminal suit will not detract from your office performance. Too, law exempted the president from suits related to his actuation as president. Plunder is a criminal case that carries the death penalty. It is precisely what a president is not supposed to do while in office. The first duty of any public official is to set himself as an example of probity and integrity. The president should be the prime example.