Aquino against the Marcos dictatorship had been construed as extraconstitutional
and the legitimacy of the new government was placed beyond judicial review.
3
The court had held that Cory Aquino became president “in violation of
[the Marcos] Constitution” and that her government was “revolutionary in the
sense that it came into existence in defiance of existing legal processes.”^4 Since
Cory Aquino was in effective control of the entire country, her legitimacy was “not
a justiciable matter [but] belongs to the realm of politics where only the people...
are the judge.”^5
In Arroyo’s case, however, the court saw the uprising as a mere “intra-
constitutional” question, nothing more than an exercise of freedom of speech
and of assembly. Yet the court held that Estrada’s equivocal “acts of relinquish-
ment” nonetheless showed an “intent to resign,” a state of mind divined from his
press statements and, remarkably, the diary of his chief cabinet secretary. A side
argument was that Estrada had lost the capacity to govern because the rest of the
government – especially the military – had already declared a “withdrawal of
loyalty.” The court thus concluded that the issue was “political in nature and
addressed solely to the Congress by constitutional fiat.”
6
The court said:
The recognition of respondent Arroyo as our de jure President made by
Congress is unquestionably a political judgment...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.^7
Bugged conversations on election cheating in 2004
President Arroyo served the remaining three years of Estrada’s term and, despite
having categorically sworn on television that she would not run for the presidency,
declared her candidacy for the 2004 presidential elections. She won those elections,
but reports of massive election cheating were confirmed in July 2005 when, on live
television, her official spokesman played a taped conversation, allegedly spliced
and altered, between Arroyo and an election official wherein they conspired to rig
the polls. Arroyo eventually apologized publicly for having made “improper phone
calls,” but without admitting that it was she who was caught in the tapes despite
her spokesman’s earlier admission. The purloined recording, now known as
the “Garci Tapes” (after Virgilio Garcellano, the election official with whom
President Arroyo conspired), triggered two constitutional debates.
(^3) Lawyer’s League for a Better Philippinesv.President Aquino, G.R. No 73748 (May 22 , 1986 );
In re Saturnino Bermudez, G.R. No 76180 (October 24 , 1986 );De Leonv.Esguerra, G.R.
No 78059 (August 31 , 1987 ); andLetter of Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, Supreme
Court Administrative Matter (hereinafter A.M.) No 90 - 11 - 2697 -CA (June 29 , 1992 ).
(^4) Letter of Justice Puno. (^5) Lawyer’s League for a Better Philippines.
(^6) Estradav.Desierto. (^7) Ibid.