G.R. No. 206666 , January 21, 2015
Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal and Alfredo S. Lim (Petitioner-Intervenor) v. Commission on Elections and Joseph Ejercito Estrada

FACTS

On September 12, 2007, the Sandiganbayan convicted Joseph Ejercito Estrada (former President Estrada) of plunder in Criminal Case No. 26558 and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties of civil interdiction and perpetual absolute disqualification. On October 25, 2007, then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo granted him an executive pardon, which stated he was “hereby restored to his civil and political rights.” Estrada accepted the pardon on October 26, 2007. He subsequently filed a Certificate of Candidacy for President in 2009, which faced challenges dismissed by the COMELEC, and he lost the election. On October 2, 2012, Estrada filed a Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor of Manila. Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal filed a Petition for Disqualification against him before the COMELEC (SPA No. 13-211 (DC)), arguing he was disqualified under Section 40 of the Local Government Code and Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code due to his plunder conviction, an offense involving moral turpitude, and that the pardon did not restore his right to hold public office. The COMELEC Second Division dismissed the petition on April 1, 2013, citing its prior resolutions in the 2010 cases which held the pardon restored Estrada’s right to seek public office. The COMELEC En Banc denied Risos-Vidal’s motion for reconsideration on April 23, 2013. Risos-Vidal then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, and Alfredo S. Lim filed a Petition-in-Intervention praying to be declared the winning candidate should Estrada be disqualified.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for disqualification and in ruling that the pardon granted to Joseph Ejercito Estrada restored his right to run for and hold the elective office of Mayor of Manila.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for certiorari and the petition-in-intervention and AFFIRMED the COMELEC Resolutions. The Court held that the pardon granted to Estrada was plenary and restored his eligibility to run for public office. The pardon expressly restored his “civil and political rights,” which inherently includes the right to seek elective office. The Court rejected the argument that the pardon was conditional based on the “whereas” clause stating Estrada’s commitment not to seek office, ruling that such clauses are not binding conditions but mere premises. The Court further held that the disqualification under Section 40 of the Local Government Code was removed by the pardon, as a plenary pardon obliterates the legal effects of a conviction. The Court also found that the petition for disqualification was filed out of time under COMELEC rules, as it was filed after the election, and that the proper remedy for a disqualified candidate who receives the highest number of votes is a separate quo warranto proceeding. The pardon effectively restored Estrada’s qualification, and the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.