The truth is that the Supreme Court did not commit any error on this issue of temporary or permanent inability simply because the SC did not rule on that issue at all. The issue of inability to govern under Section 11, Article VII of the Constitution is a political question. And Estrada himself strongly contended that Congress not the SC has the ultimate authority to determine and resolve the said question (G.R. 146738, Estrada vs. Arroyo). In this regard, nothing can be more precise and clearer than the words of the Supreme Court itself when it declared that:
"The power is conceded by the petitioner( Estrada) to be with Congress and its alleged erroneous exercise cannot be corrected by this Court. The recognition of respondent Arroyo as our de jure president made by Congress is unquestionably a political judgment. It is significant that House Resolution No. 176 cited as bases of its judgment such factors as the ‘ people’s loss of confidence on the ability of former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada to effectively govern’ and the ‘members of the international community had extended their recognition of Her Excellency, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Republic of the Phillipines’, and it has a constitutional duty of fealty to the supreme will of the people x x x’ This political judgment may be right or wrong but Congress is answerable only to the people for its judgment. Its wisdom is fit to be debated before the tribunal of the people and not before a court of justice. Needless to state, the doctrine of separation of power constitutes an insuperable bar against this Court’s interposition of its power of judicial review to review the judgment of Congress rejecting petitioner’s claim that he is still President, albeit on leave and that respondent Arroyo is merely acting President"( G.R.146710-15,Estrada vs Desierto; 146738, Estrada vs. Arroyo April 3, 2001).
The compromise formula violates the doctrine of separation of power. It is a poorly disguised manner of getting the SC to rule on a political question which only Congress has the ultimate authority to decide. In the cases brought before it by Estrada, the SC ruled only on the legal issue of his resignation based on the "totality of prior, contemporaneous and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence" of material relevance. And the SC ruling on this issue, which has long become final, is that Estrada has actually (not only constructively) resigned from office before President Arroyo took her oath as President.
To be sure, even assuming that Estrada can now prove to the Supreme Court that he did not actually resign, he cannot, at this late stage regain the presidency by claiming that he is only a President on leave and merely unable to govern temporarily.
This unfortunate chapter in our country’s turbulent political history has already been brought to its final denouément way back in 2001. To reopen it now in the guise of impeaching some justices of the SC who refused to review this admittedly political question, is definitely contrary to law and public policy and prejudicial to the common good.
E-mail: josesison@edsamail.com.ph