Republic vs Sereno

11 May 2018 | Tijam, J. (Main Opinion)

Legal History

Doctrine:

Case Summary: The Republic of the Philippines through SolGen filed a case for quo warranto against the Chief Justice
Sereno to declare her ineligible to hold the post and her appointment void for failing to submit and file her SALNs as
part of the requirements set by the JBC in 2012 for the Chief Justice nomination process. Such omission declares her
ineligible to be a candidate for the position and shows her lack of proven integrity. SC ruling declares her disqualified
from the post of Chief Justice via quo warranto proceeding and is ousted.

Facts:
- Republic of the Philippines through SolGen Calida filed for issuance of a writ of quo warranto to declare the
appointment of Respondent, Sereno, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, null and void, and oust her from office
- Despite being as a professor at the UP College of Law for 20 years (1986 to 2006), and a legal counsel for various
government agencies from 2003 to 2009 (i.e. PIATCO), she filed only 11 out of 25 SALNs that ought to have been
filed as a public officer based on the records of the UP HRDO and Ombusman.
- In August 2010, Respondent was appointed Associate Justice by President Aquino.
- In 2012, during the Screening process by the JBC for the vacant Chief Justice position, the Judicial and Bar Council
required that all nominees for the CJ position from the government, Respondent included, needed to submit all
previous SALNs (from Dec 2011) instead of the usual SALNs for the last two years required for other judicial
vacancies.
- On July 20, 2012, the JBC in a meeting discussed the nominees with incomplete documentary requirements.
Respondent has not submitted her SALNs for a period of 10 years (1986-2006).
- Several other candidates had incomplete documents and the JBC agreed to extend the deadline. However,
Respondent failed to submit the additional SALNs and instead replied through a letter stating that she submitted
these while employed by UP and that its infeasible to retrieve all these files from UP. She stated that UP has cleared
her of all accountabilities when she left UP in 2006 and that she was employed in the private sector from 2006 to
2010.
- During the impeachment proceedings
- Proceedings for the quo warranto started in 2018, while Rule 66 (Rules of Court) states that there is a prescriptive
period of 1 year from appointment to issue quo warranto

- CASE FOR REPUBLIC:

o Quo warranto is an available remedy to question the validity of Respondent’s appointment. The State
has an imprescriptible right to bring a quo warranto petition (1 year starts from the discovery of the
disqualification).
o The basis of the quo warranto proceedings is Respondent’s lack of proven integrity because of her
failure to file complete SALNs for all years in public service and submit ALL SALNs from 2011 as part of
the JBC requirements for the nomination of Chief Justice in 2012. Such failure to file is a violation of a
constitutional duty as a public officer, and the failure to submit complete requirements means that she
wasn’t qualified to be nominated at the onset.

MAIN ISSUES
1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction over the petition for Quo Warranto who is an impeachable officer
2. Whether the petition is dimissible on the ground of prescription
3. Whether Respondent is inegible as a Candidate and Nominee for Position of Chief Justice
4. Whether respondent is a de jure or de facto officer

Republic vs. Sereno | 1

HELD
1. On the jurisdiction for Quo Warranto against Impeachable Officer - YES
- Yes, SC has original jurisdiction over quo warranto (Section 5, Article VIII) and the petition for quo
warranto is of trasncendantal importance as it affects the highest post of the judiciary and is of public
concern. It is the duty of the court to settle an actual controversy presented before it.
- The Respondent’s argument that impeachment is the only remedy to remove an impeachable officer will
not hold as both impeachment and quo warranto can proceed independently and separately.
i. Impeachment and quo warranto are distinct as to 1. Jurisdiction 2. Grounds 3. Applicable rules
pertaining to initiation, filing and dismissal, and 4. Limitations.
ii. Impeachment is the sole power of the Congress, with the House having the power to impeach
and Senate with the power to convict. The grounds for impeachment are stated in the
Constitution – betrayal of public trust. These refers to acts or omissions committed during the
term of public office.
iii. Quo warranto is a remedy from the judiciary. It determines whether an individual has the legal
right to hold the public office he occupies. It can only be commenced by the Solictor General or
a public prosecutor. Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution allows the institution of a quo
warranto action against an impeachable officer.
- Courts exercise of quo warranto is not a violation of separation of powers.

2. Whether the petition is dimissible on the ground of prescription - NO

- In general, a private individual pursuing a private interest can bring a quo warranto action against a
public officer within 1 year after the cause of action. However, prescription doesn’t apply when it is the
State (SolGen) instituting the quo warranto action as the State is seeking relief for public interest.
- Prescription does not lie against the State (Article 1108 (4) of Civil Code).
- Also, it is more important for the Court to decide on the merits of the case of public concern that dismiss
it outright on a technicality.

3. Whether Respondent is ineligible as a Candidate and Nominee for Position of Chief Justice - YES
- Authority over the JBC – The Supreme Court maintains super
- Compliance with the Constitutional requirement of SALN filing as it related to a person’s integrity
- Respondent’s failure to comply with the JBC’s SALN requirements voids the nomination
- Whether the subsequent nomination and appointment cures the ineligibility

4. Whether respondent is a de jure or de facto officer

- Sereno is a de facto officer – all acts and opinions penned by her have the operation of law, but it
doesn’t mean she had the rightful title to the office

DECISION: Petition for quo warranto is granted. Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno is found DISQUALIFIED from and
is hereby adjudged GUILTY of UNLAWFULLY HOLDING and EXERCISING the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE. Accordingly,
Respondent Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno is OUSTED and EXCLUDED therefrom

Republic vs. Sereno | 2

CAGUIOA, J. – Dissenting Opinion

I dissent with the majority opinion that quo warranto is an available remedy to remove a Chief Justice. Quo warranto
must fail for the ff. reasons:
1. Quo warranto is not available as a mode of removal from office for impeachable officers
- The ponencia (Main opinion) relied on the Constitutional provision for the Presidential Electoral Tribunal’s
power for quo warranto to remove the President and Vice President and argued that there are other modes of
removing impeachable officers aside from impeachment. This is grossly erroneous.
- Quo warranto for President and Vice President as remedy is explicitly sanctioned by the Constitution itself (Art
VII, Sec. 4). Constitution must be interpreted as a whole, and this exception to quo warranto should not be
unduly extended to apply to impeachable officers other than the President and Vice President.
- Jurisprudence illustrates that the only mode of removing a SC justice is through impeachment and court ruled
that any alternative modes would be unconstitutional citing the cases of Cuenco v. Fernan (Court cannot grant
disbarment of a Member of the Court because that would be equivalent to removing a sitting Justice not
through impeachment), in re Gonzales and Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan (a public officer may not be charged
criminally with an offense that carries the penalty of removal from office). The ruling of the ponencia is not
grounded on laws and jurisprudence.
- Impeachment is a process textually committed to the legislature and beyond the Court’s power of review.
o Court is excluded from exercising any power in the impeachment process to insulate legislature from
judicial encroachment and to ensure the independence of individual members of the Court.
o Quo warranto constitutes an institutional attack on the Supreme Court as it enlists the Court’s
participation in the erosion of separation of powers, which is its duty to protect
2. One-year prescriptive period for filing of quo warranto already lapsed one year after appointment or
assumption of office
- Assuming a quo warranto is an available remedy, under the Rules of Court, a quo warranto proceeding should
be instituted within one year from the assumption of office. The Solicitor General contends that prescription
does not lie against the State (nullum tempus occurit regi) and Art. 1108, however this is not applicable outside
of cases seeking recovery of State property.

3. Submission of SALN is not a constitutional requirement for the position of Chief Justice
- There is no Constitutional requirement for the submission of SALN for an applicant to Chief Justice. The
qualifications in the Constitution are exclusive, and no one can add or lessen these qualifications, not even the
Legislature.
- The JBC, which has the power to promulgate its own rules of procedure as an independent Constitutional body,
did not indicate it as a requirement in its own internal rules. JBC itself did not decide that submission of SALNs is
part of determining whether a person is of proven integrity. When it revised the JBC rules in 2016, SALNs
submission still did not include SALNs as proof of integrity This is evident when the JBC asked for a submission of
SALNs and relaxed the rules by accepting substantial compliance from the nominees when they failed to submit
all SALNs.
- JBC, not the Court, has the power to determine evidence of integrity and exercise full discretion to define the
criteria for choosing. JBC’s determination of integrity is a political question outside the Court’s jurisdiction.
- SALNs are still required to be filed by each public employee in RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards)
but it is premature for the Court to rule on respondent’s non-submission when no administrative case has been
filed against her in accordance with RA 6713.
- Burden of proof of non-filing should be on the Solicitor General, not on the respondent.

Conclusion:
I view with deep shame and regret this day when the Court has ousted one of its sitting Members upon the prodding of
a mere agency of a separate coordinate department. NO matter how dislikable a member of the Court is, the rules
cannot bec hanged just to get rid of him, or her in this case. I VOTE TO DISMISS THE PETITION.
Republic vs. Sereno | 3
Republic vs. Sereno | 4