PETITION

1. The petitioners, namely, Concerned Citizens For Effective and Responsible Government, Inc., hereinafter referred to as CONZENS; Sulongbayan Movement Foundation, Inc., hereinafter referred to as SULONGBAYAN; and the Institute of Continuing Legal Education, Inc., hereinafter referred to as ICLSEI, are no-profit, non-stock corporations organized under the laws of the Philippines, with offices on the 2^nd Floor of the Ocampo Heritage Building., 214 Wilson Street, San Juan, Metro Manila.

2. On the other hand, ELISEO OCAMPO, EDITHA A. SANTOS, and ARMANDO A. RICARTE, JR., are all Filipino citizens of legal age, authorized to practice law in the Philippines, and residents respectively of the 3^rd Floor of the Ocampo Heritage Building., 214 Wilson Street, San Juan, Metro Manila; 200 Pasaneda Street, San Juan Metro Manila; and, 1817-B Kalimbas Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila. Petitioner Ocampo is the Executive Chairman of CONZENS, SULONGBAYAN, and ICLSEI; while, petitioners Santos and Ricarte are officers of the aforementioned corporations. In addition, Ricarte is the Acting Director of the Paralegal Services Bureau of ICLSEI.

3. Of the three organizations, CONZENS has the primary and prime purpose of promoting and serving the cause of good government and, as such, has been accredited by the Office of the Ombudsman as a Prevention Corruption Unit, which has the duty and responsibility of filing appropriate charges for violation of the anti-graft and corruption laws of which it has actionable knowledge. On the other hand, SULONGBAYAN, as an organization, has for one of its primary purposes, the advocacy and promotion of a "political culture" that will give Filipino people genuine political power, that is to say, the power to have and take a controlling role in running the affairs of government; and to effectively and strictly enforce the immediate/prompt public accountability of all government officials, including the President of the Republic, for their official acts. ICLSEI, for its part, is engaged in, among others, the advocacy of public interest cases.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

4. On 20 January 2001, amidst massive street protests, simultaneous resignations of his cabinet members, and the withdrawal of support by the military and police top brass, President Joseph Ejercito Estrada issued a public statement, the contents of which are partially quoted hereunder:

"By virtue of Section 11, Article VII of the Constitution, I am hereby transmitting this declaration that I am unable to exercise the powers and duties of my office. By operation of law and the Constitution, the Vice President shall be the acting President."

5. With this letter in mind, twelve members of the Supreme Court convened and gave verbal authority to the Chief Justice Hilario Davide to administer the oath of office to Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as the next President of the Republic of the Philippines.

6. The oath-taking took place at noon of the same day at the EDSA shrine to the joyous acclamation of the people gathered for the momentous occasion.

7. Thereafter, in a resolution dated 22 January 2001, the Court en banc promulgated the following ruling:

"A.M. No. 01-1-05-SC.- In re: Request of the Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to Take Her Oath of Office as President of the Republic of the Philippines before the Chief Justice. Acting on the urgent request of the Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to be sworn in as President of the Republic of the Philippines, addressed to the Chief Justice and confirmed by the letter to the Court, dated January 20, 2001, which request was treated as an administrative matter, The Court resolved unanimously to CONFIRM the authority given by the twelve (12) members of the Court then present to the Chief Justice on January 20, 2001 to administer the oath of office to Vice President Glopria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Republic of the Philippines, at noon of January 20, 2001.

"This resolution is without prejudice to the disposition of any justiciable case which may be filed by a proper party."

8. With this sequence of events, the petitioners started the process of filing appropriate criminal charges against former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, particularly those separately filed by the group of Atty. Jaime Soriano and by Atty. Oliver Lozano, in effect casting doubt as to whether Joseph Ejercito Estrada still enjoys the exemption from criminal prosecution granted by law and jurisprudence to a sitting President.

9. It is contended by some legal luminaries that:

1. There is no legal or constitutional basis for proclaiming or swearing into office Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as the President of the Philippines, since at the time of such proclamation or swearing in, President Joseph E. Estrada had not yet filed or submitted his resignation. Technically, therefore, he remains the President of the Philippines.

2. These luminaries are obviously referring to Section 11 of the Article VII that was used as basis by President Joseph E. Estrada in his above-quoted public statement dated 20 January 2001. This same provision also provides in the part that, "when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall reassume the powers and duties of his office."

Thus, it would now appear that President Joseph E. Estrada’s relinquish of his office was temporary and that the legal possibility of his powers and duties at some future time exists.

3. The authority given by the twelve justices last 20 January 2001 to the Chief Justice and confirmed by the Court en banc in its resolution dated 22 January 2001 was not in accord with the Constitution and established processes. The letter request of President Macapagal-Arroyo to be sworn in as President and the action thereon are not the procedures prescribed by law. The Supreme Court is a "static" institution in the sense that It cannot make a ruling on any issue or matter unless the same is brought to the High Court for appropriate action by a proper party in the proper form.

4. The doctrine of salus populi est suprema lex is not clearly enunciated so as to apply in the issue raised herein and that even, if it were, the applicability of such maxim to the instant case appears doubtful.