First 10 mins Allanic

None

10-20 Ayongao
None

20-30 Barron

Order of business:
● Presentation of Solicitor General Calida
● Presentation of Atty. Poblador (for Respondent CJ Sereno)
● En Banc will address questions to CJ Sereno (w/ interpellation addressed to Sol. Gen. and Atty. Poblador)

PRESENTATION OF SOL. GEN. CALIDA

Opening Statement
May it please the Honorable Court, a man once said, “with integrity you have nothing to fear since you have nothing to
hide.” Yet, why is Respondent Sereno so deathly afraid of Quo Warranto? Is she hiding something? In resolving this
petitioner, the Court must grapple with these questions:
1. Where are Sereno’s SALNs?
2. Why did she not submit them before the Court?
3. Why did she declare before the JBC that her SALNs were irretrievable?
4. Why were her 1998, 2006, and 2009 SALNs belatedly filed?
5. Why was her 2006 SALN not stamped “received” by U.P.? Why was it signed 4 years later? Why was it not
notarized? Why was it signed only on the same day it was submitted to the JBC (July 2010)?
6. Why was her 2011 SALN not signed by [her] husband?
7. Why did her 1991 SALN declare pieces of jewelry acquired from 1986 to 1991 although her 1990 SALN did
not indicate those jewelries?

The preceding questions becloud the validity of Sereno’s appointment as Associate Justice and later as Chief Justice.
The RP, through this representation, is therefore challenging the validity of her appointment to the highest post in the
judiciary as a matter of necessity. The Republic must take action to insure that all positions of the Government are
held by people who are qualified and who deserve to hold such position.

Procedural Issue

1. The Court can assume jurisdiction and give due course to the instant petition of Quo Warranto. ​In
Estrada v. Macapagal-Arroyo​, the Court exercised jurisdiction over a Quo Warranto Petition against the
President of the Republic. The ruling made a full determination of the issue whether it could oust the
president, who is an impeachable officer, or find that she was unlawfully holding office. Thus, "in view
thereof, the petitions of Estrada challenging Macapagal-Arroyo as de jure 14th President of the Republic are
dismissed".

2. A petition for Quo Warranto is the appropriate remedy to determine the eligibility of Sereno to be
appointed as Chief Justice.​ Sereno claims that she may be ousted from office only by impeachment and not
though Quo Warranto. Unfortunately, she's mistaken. Quo Warranto, which literally means "by what
authority", is recognized as an extraordinary remedy whereby the State challenges a person or entity to
show "by what authority" he holds a public office or exercises a public franchise.

The Revised Rules of Court provide that the action is brought either by the Solicitor General or by the Public
Prosecutor in the name of the RP. It is the principal remedy and an effective method to challenge a claim to
public office. Quo Warranto was first formalized into law in the Philippines with the passage of the Code of
Civil Procedure in August 7, 1901. The action was incorporated in the 1940 Rules of Court, 1964 Rules of
Court, and the current 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 66 [of the Rules of Court] describes Quo Warranto as an action for the usurpation of public office,
position or franchise. It may be commenced by a verified petition in the name of the RP against: (a) a person
who usurps or intrudes into or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise; (b) a
public officer who does or suffers an act, which by provision of law constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of
his office; or (c) an association which acts as a corporation in the Philippines without being legally
incorporated or without lawful authority to so act.

The writ as a method of protection against any person who usurps, intrudes into or unlawfully holds or
exercises a public office, position or franchise is now being sought by the Republic to dispute the validity of
Sereno’s appointment on the ground that she did not prove her integrity as an applicant for the position of
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Sereno’s assumption of the position of Chief Justice under the color of an
executive appointment is a public wrong that can only be corrected by a Quo Warranto. Her appointment is
tainted with invalidity, because she is ineligible. Although she is an impeachable officer, she may thus be
ousted from office despite her protestations. Even an impeachable officer can be subject of a Quo Warranto
proceedings as the Court itself has shown through its rules and decisions.
 In the 2010 Rules of Presidential Electoral Tribunal promulgated in May 4 , 2010, an election protest is
initiated by the filing of an election protest or a petition for Quo Warranto against the President or
Vice-President. By analogy, if Quo Warranto is available against the President and the Vice-President the two
highest officers of the land, who are impeachable officers, [then] Sereno cannot claim that as Chief Justice
she can only be removed by way of impeachment under Sec. 2, Art. XI of the Constitution. Indubitable, Quo
Warranto may be resorted to even against impeachable officers.

3. The Constitution does not exclude the filing of a petition for Quo Warranto an ineligible impeachable
officer.​ Sec. 2, Art. XI of the Constitution provides that impeachable officials may be removed from office on
impeachment for or conviction of culpable violation of the constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
corruption, other high crimes or betrayal of public trust. Nonetheless, Sec. 5 (1), Art. VIII [of the
Constitution] grants this court original jurisdiction to issue a writ of Quo Warranto to remove officials
without distinction. Thus, the remedy to remove an ineligible impeachable officer is through a petition for
Quo Warranto.

It seems that Sereno is mistaking one for the other. A Quo Warranto ousts a public officer on the ground of
ineligibility or failing to meet the qualifications for such public office at the time of his appointment, while
impeachment removes a validly appointed impeachable officer upon conviction of any of the impeachable
offenses committed while in office. What is assailed in the present petition is Sereno’s ineligibility to occupy
the position of Chief Justice. She was appointed to that position although she was not able to prove that she
was a person of proven integrity. The petition does not deal with the impeachable offenses that she may
have committed. Also, the impeachment case against Sereno presupposes a valid appointment. In contrast,
the Quo Warranto petition before the Court asserts that her appointment is void ​ab initio.​ There can be no
doubt that her failure to prove her eligibility is beyond the jurisdiction of the impeachment court. Certainly,
ineligibility is not an impeachable offense.

30-40 Bugayon
Quo Warranto Case (30:00-40:00) g

Calida: …the petition does not deal with the impeachable offenses that she may have committed. Also, the
impeachment case against Sereno presupposes a valid appointment. In contrast, the quo warranto petition before the
Court asserts that her appointment is void ab initio. There can be no doubt that her failure to prove her illegibility is
beyond the jurisdiction of the impeachment court. Certainly, ineligibility is not an impeachable offense. Number four,
the petition for quo warranto was filed seasonably, even as she claims that she may only be removed through
impeachment for and conviction of impeachable offenses, Sereno in the same breath states that the petition for quo
warranto was file out of time. The republic’s petition, however, is not time barred. Nullum tempus occurit regi –
“prescription does not run against the state.” This is embodied in Art. 1108, par. 4 of the new civil code which
provides that acquisitive and extinctive prescription does not run against the state and its subdivisions. Actions by
the state to defend or recover its property do not prescribe. In republic vs. (inaudible), the court explained, and I
quote “firstly, it should be considered that the complaint in the present case was brought by the Republic of the
Philippines not as a nominal party, but in the exercise of its sovereign functions to protect the interest of the state
over a public property. Under par. 4 of Art. 1108 of the civil code ‘prescription, both acquisitive and extinctive, does
not run against the state.’ This Court has held that a statute of limitations does not run against the right of action of
the government of the Philippines.” There can be no quibbling that government funds are part of the property of the
state. Thus, in Tiro vs. Jontanosas, the Court ruled that a salary of a government officer or employee, while still in the
hands of the government, is considered government property. The salary check of a government officer or employee
as a teacher does not belong to him before it is physically delivered to him. Until that time, the check belongs to the
government. If the right of the republic to protect its interest over its property is imprescriptible, so is the Republic’s
right to defend itself from usurpers and unlawful holders of public office. Indeed, the republic has a continuous
interest in ensuring those who partake of its sovereign powers are qualified to do so. The one year prescriptive period
in Sec. 11, Rule 6 of The Rules of Court applies only when the quo warranto is commenced by a private individual and
not when the republic, represented by the Solicitor General, institutes an action to enforce a public right as in the
present petition. To hold otherwise is to force the government to accord benefits to and spend his resources in behalf
of a person who is illegally holding public office. Assuming arguendo that the one year prescriptive period also applies
to the Republic, the reckoning point should be from the time the solicitor general discovered the evidence showing
Sereno’s ineligibility for the position of Chief Justice at the time of her appointment. In this case, Sereno’s failure to
prove her integrity only came to light during the widely reported impeachment proceedings conducted by the House
Committee on Justice sometime in February 2018. This interpretation is consistent with Sec. 2, Rule 66 of the Rules of
Court which confers on the Solicitor General authority to file on behalf of the Republic, a quo warranto petition when
he has good reason to believe that there is evidence that an individual is unlawfully holding a public office. Unless the
Solicitor General has actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the unlawful of a public office, it is well
(inaudible) impossible for him to form a good reason to believe that he should file a quo warranto petition against the
public officer. To subscribe to the Constructive Notice Theory advanced by the respondent, is to ignore the
undesirable consequences that the theory entails. In Amante vs. Hidalgo, the Court stressed that the duty enjoined
upon the Solicitor General to institute quo warranto proceedings involves the exercise of discretion. This is so
because the institution of the action is made to depend upon whether he has a good reason to believe that he can
establish by proof that the case is one of those specified in Sec. 197 and 198 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Frivaldo
vs. COMELEC, the Court rejected the argument that the petition filed with the Commission on Elections which sought
the disqualification of then Gov. Frivaldo should have been dismissed for tardiness. The Court emphasized that
qualifications for public office are continuing requirements and must be possessed not only at the time of the
appointment or assumption of the office, but during the officer’s entire tenure. Number five, the JBC’s determination
of proven integrity is not a political question, so as not to expose ourself to removal for lack of eligibility. Respondent
wants to hide behind the political question doctrine. In her very own dissenting opinion in Ocampo vs. Enriquez, the
respondent opined that a threshold test in determining the existence of a political question must be satisfied, and I
quote her “whether indeed the question is one addressed to purely political exercises internal to the workings of the
legislature, or whether, on the part of the president, there are no legal standards against which his particular action
will be evaluated.” It’s a mistake, gross and unforgivable, coming from a supposed Chief Justice to claim that the JBC is
part of the body politicking. The JBC has never been placed from the time of its creation to the present, under either
the executive or legislative department. Instead, as Sereno presumably knows, the JBC is a constitutional body over
which the Supreme Court has supervisory authority. The discretion granted to JBC, however, is not without bounds
and restrictions. The exercise of its powers in matters involving nomination of a Chief Justice is subject to sec. 7, par.
3, Art. 8 of the Constitution stating that “a member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity,
probity, and independence. It is not mere rhetoric, but a categorical command that the JBC cannot stray away from.”
Let me now turn to the substantive issues. Number six, Sereno was not a person of proven integrity at the time of her
appointment. The respondent argues that she is a person of proven integrity at the time of her appointment as Chief
Justice, this is farthest from the truth. The qualifications for the position of Chief Justice, go beyond the requirements
of age, citizenship, and years of law practice. Sec. 7 par. 3 of Art. 8 of the 1987 constitution demands of all members of
the judiciary, upon their appointment, and so long as they hold office, that they be persons of proven integrity. Our
constitutional framers deliberately intended to include this so-called “moral provision” as a precondition for all
judicial appointments, conscious of the then prevalent public distrust in the judiciary. This much is revealed in the
deliberations of the 1986 constitutional commission when it sought to strengthen the judiciary as an institution. The
constitutional qualification of proven integrity among all judicial officers is not a hallow provision that can be ignored
or waived, not by Sereno, not by the Judicial Bar Council in whom resides the solemn mandate to recommend
appointees to the judiciary.

40-50 Claudio
[Continuation of the reading of the arguments by OSG]

OSG stated that based on the definition of integrity in the case filed by Jardeleza, integrity is the “fidelity to sound,
moral and ethical standards” and that one must exhibit no less scrupulous respect to the law. Sereno failed to exhibit
such when she failed to file or submit her SALNs. Thus, she is not to be considered a person of proven integrity.

7. Sereno failed to file her SALNs. OSG added that Sereno stated that she complied with the SALNs laws when she was
a professor in UP College of Law but based on evidence, she deliberately failed to file her SALNs 11 times. (She only
filed her SALNs in the years 1985, 1990-1991, 1993-1997 and 2002) The OSG added that the requirement of SALN
cannot be ignored by Sereno since it is a mandate of the Constitution. Moreover, Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards also requires gov’t officials or officers to religiously file their SALNs. ​Sereno cannot also invoke the
presumption of regularity since it only refers to officials act and not all acts of the official. Official acts are
only those provided by law.

8. Sereno committed a grave misrepresentation in order for her to be short-listed by the JBC. In her letter to the JBC,
she stated that the retrieval of her SALNs will be infeasible and that her SALNs can no longer be retrieved. According
to the OSG, it can be implied from this statement that she religiously filed her SALNs, which she did not. The OSG
added that these SALN are available all along and it only took Director Scotto 8 days to furnish the OSG with the
copies of the SALNs. T​his means that her statement that she cannot produce her SALNs is falsehood. ​The OSG
added that she submitted only 3 SALNs to the JBC despite the availability of her other SALNs from UP.

Thus, Sereno is not qualified to be in SC let alone to be a CJ since she failed to show that she is a person of proven
integrity. Thus, she is unlawfully holding her position or a usurper.

The OSG added that this case is not about singling out Sereno but ensuring that all those person who are in the
Judiciary is of proven integrity. He also added that this case is not about eroding the independence of judiciary but
preserving the honor and dignity of SC as an institution.

50-60 Cuntapa
Atty. Alexander Poblador, Counsel for Respondent y
● Starts by clarifying that their motions against the 5 justices to inhibit do not constitute a waiver to their
objections to participate in these proceedings.
● He responds to the arguements of Sol Gen
○ Sol Gen​: We must take the road less travelled.
■ Pobaldor:​ But there is only one road.The road less travelled doesn't exist. It will set a
very dangerous precedent. It will destroy judicial dependence and separation of powers.
■ Funa vs Villar​: Certiorari is the proper action to question the appointment of COA
commissioner. Not quo warranto.
○ Sol Gen: ​No accusation of grave of abuse against JBC. JBC is not in trial here, it is Sereno.
■ Poblador:​ That means Sol Gen is not asking the court to exercise its expanded power of
judicial review to review JBC's decision to nominate Sereno. He is essentially asking the
court to exercise that discretion itself for the JBC => That is a political question.
■ Qualification of integrity- also no precise standard.
■ Villanueva vs JBC​: Court acknowledged that the consti doesn't lay down in precise terms
the process of choosing the nominees. Thus, JBC has full discretion, with flexibility to
 determine the rules. Thus, correctness of JBC's decision is a pol question unless it is
tainted with grave abuse. But remember that Sol Gen admitted he is not accusing JBC of
grave abuse.
■ Sol Gen actually overlooked 2 cases wherein SC dismissed objections of CSC over a
comelec's appointment of chief election officer and a mayor's appointment of a city
officer. These 2 cases were dismissed based on pol question.
■ Court must not be misled by false distinctions made by Sol Gen: revocation of
appointment vs removal
■ Mitra vs Subido​, appointment may only be revoked b4 it is completed. Once complete,
ouster constitutes removal except in accordance with the consti and law
■ In this case, Sereno has been in office for 6 yrs already Thus, ouster constitutes removal
from office. It then has to comply with consti and law/
○ Sol Gen: ​We are not seeking removal for failure to submit SALN. We are not invoking an
impeachable offense.
■ Poblador: ​But in the Articles of Impeachment previously approved by the House
Committee on Justice, allege failure to submit SALN constitutes an impeachable offense.
Thus, it is not within this courts jurisdiction.
■ Cited several cases wherein SC applied section 2 Art 11, that impeachment is the only
mode of removing an impeachable officer.
■ **he continues to argue

1 hr- 1:10 mins. De Vera

Atty. Alexander J. Poblador, Sereno’s counsel, continued the defense for CJ Sereno.

IMPEACHMENT, NOT QUO WARRANTO

He cited jurisprudence such as Lecaroz vs Sandiganbayan, Cuenco vs Fernan, In Re Gonzales, among others, which
ruled that an impeachable officer can be removed only by impeachment.

With respect to the contention of the OSG that the Supreme Court can take cognizance of a quo warranto petition
against the Chief Justice because it can do so with quo warranto petitions against the President and Vice President,
Atty. Poblador stated that such argument is simply non sequitur. This is due to the fact that the power of the Supreme
Court to take cognizance of a quo warranto petition stems from the Constitution under Art VII, Sec 4. There is no
parallel provision for sitting Justices of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can only remove judges of lower
courts but not fellow Supreme Court justices.

It can also be gleaned in the constitutional deliberations that the exclusive class of impeachable officers cannot be
removed by other means. The independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers are the public policies
underlying this principle. If the OSG’s petition is allowed to prosper, this would be a dangerous precedent destroying
the public policies mentioned. What will stop the OSG from doing the same against other impeachable officers in the
future?

PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
The OSG also claims that the petition is exempted from the prescriptive period provided under the Sec 11 of Rule 66
under the Rules of Court. He claims that he can file the petition anytime. Atty. Poblador argued that this undermines
the impeachment process provided under the Constitution that should be used sparingly by Congress. Assuming but
not conceding the argument regarding prescription, the OSG’s petition is time-barred. Under the Rules of Court, the
petition must be commenced within one year. The rule does not distinguish between actions commenced by the OSG
and those who claim a right to hold office.

The OSG also invokes Art 1108 of the Civil Code, which states that prescription does not run against the State. Atty.
Poblador contended that the OSG overlooked Art 1115 of the Civil Code, which states that the provisions of the
present Title are understood to be without prejudice to what in this Code or in special laws is established with respect
to specific cases of prescription. Sec 11 of Rule 66 has the force of law and is a specific case as contemplated under Art
1115.

Atty. Poblador cited the case of Agcaoili vs Suguitan, which the OSG himself cited. ​Agcaoili stated that “[f]or the state
to claim that the statutes of limitation do not apply to it and yet insist that it may plead such statutes to bar the action
of ​quo warranto brought by one of its public officials whom it itself has ousted from office, appears to us to be unjust,
unfair, unreasonable, and not within the contemplation of sound jurisprudence.” As early as the Chief Justice’s
appointment i.e. August 24, 2012, the OSG already had a cause of action to seek the ouster of CJ Sereno. The petition of
the OSG, in this case, is five years late.

Atty. Poblador then addressed the substantive issues of the petition.

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
He reiterates that the Chief Justice continues to look for the other SALNs, but will only submit it to the Senate sitting
as the impeachment court. She will not do so because she has something to hide but because the Supreme Court is not
a trier of facts. The impeachment proceedings have already commenced. Once the articles of impeachment are
transferred to the Senate, the Senate will have the exclusive power to try and decide the issues. The OSG should not be
allowed to preempt the impeachment. The Chief Justice will also address other comments of the OSG relative to her
SALNs in the Senate trial.
In the the quo warranto petition, the OSG claimed that the Chief Justice did not file all her SALNs between 1986 to
2006. This claim is based on the letter and certification of the 2017 UP HR Development Office that only the 2002
SALN can be found in their records and the 2017 certification of the Ombdusman that only the 1998 SALN was found.
However, since then, the Chief Justice had already secured the other SALNs purportedly missing. The SALNs in UP are
actually incomplete. The UP HR Development Office and Ombudsman certifications were actually overturned.

Concerned Taxpayer vs Doblada Jr. is illustrative. The report by the OCA in this case that it did not have the SALNs of
Doblada Jr for 18 years did not mean that he did not file his SALNs for those years upon eveidence that at least one
SALN during those years was filed. It was enough to overturn the report. The Chief Justice did not miselead the JBC.
Her explanation to the JBC that it was infeasible to retrieve all her SALNs beyond 15 years was correct since UP was
only required to keep them for a period of 10 years.

1:10- 1:20 mins. Del

Rosario
Atty. Poblador states that the law requires the head of office to keep copies of SALN’s for only a period of 10 years.
The UP records of SALN do not include 1989 and 1990 SALNs and must be considered incomplete. Sereno
immediately inquired with UP College of Law and was referred to UPHRDO. As she had no more time, ​she had no
alternative but to explain that she cannot produce them under the circumstances.

Atty. Poblador emphasizes that other applicants ​submitted explanations why they could not submit their own
missing SALNs.​ To strengthen his point, he narrated that J. Carpio, J. De Castro, J. De Castro and J. Brion also had
missing SALNs for certain years. J. Brion did not even have any explanation for his 10 missing SALNs. He proceeds to
talk about the qualification of integrity in relation to SALN requirement.

“​At least 11 candidates including the CJ were found to have sufficiently complied with the requirement to produce
SALNs while in gov’t service. 6 of them were included in the shortlist submitted to the president​ applying the other
standards for integrity in the JBC rules, which do not even specifically mention the submission of SALNs.
The fact that there were missing SALNs filed with the UP and the Ombudsman does not reflect on her integrity
or probity let alone prove that she does not have those qualifications.​ According to the case of ​Ombudsman v.
Racho,​ the violation of the SALN laws does not by itself evince dishonesty in the absence of proof that the public
officer had actively acquired… unexplained wealth. ​And the petition does not present evidence let alone prove
that the CJ committed graft or corruption…​”

Chief Justice Sereno takes the stand under oath. J. De Castro is first to raise questions.

J. De Castro: ​Did you religiously comply with the submission of the SALN as mandated by law?

CJ Sereno: J. De Castro and my colleagues, before I answer that question, can I have your assurance that should any
quo warranto petition be filed against any of you, on the ground that one or more of your SALNs are not on record,
that you would also under oath, before this Court, answer all questions regarding your SALNs? For example, J. De
Castro, who should have filed 39 SALNs but only filed 15 with the JBC.

J. De Castro: Will you please answer the question? You are placed under oath! You are not supposed to–

(Sereno cuts her saying yes but this is a due process and equal protection issue)

CJ Sereno: Under the Doblado(??) doctrine, I can maintain that​ I religiously filed my SALN as required by law.

J. De Castro: I forgot to say something. There is something in your motion for inhibition, there are allegations and
grounds stated which I vehemently deny and I will put that in a resolution and later on submit to the Court. The
conversation you mentioned – it never happened. I’d like to tell that under oath. In my honor, I am saying – (Sereno
cuts her) Excuse me? I am not yet done. The conversation you mentioned never happened! and I am going to prove
that. Let us not anymore belabor this issue. You will have your chance to say something about it when I explain all the
grounds you stated in your motion in the proper opinion that I am going to issue later on.

CJ Sereno: (cuts her again) In the decision, when it’s already too late? or will you issue the opinion before the decision
comes out?

J. De Castro: (nautal siya lol) Do not preempt my decision based on that… As to the timing of the issuance of my
opinion, it will be subject to the approval of the Court en banc. I am not answering your question! It is you who is now
under oath to testify about the submission of your SALN and I would like to ask you about that.

CJ Sereno: We are all under oath, J. De Castro. You took an oath also.

J. De Castro: Did I get it right that you religiously complied with the—

CJ Sereno: ​Yes!​ (galit)

J. De Castro: ​Sec. 17, Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution says that “a public officer or employee upon assumption of
office and as often thereafter as be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities
and net worth. In the case of… the Supreme Court…, the declaration will be disclosed to the public in the
manner provided by law.”​ So do you agree to that?

CJ Sereno: ​There are exceptions provided in RA 6713, ​I read Section 3 “Statements and Disclosure”, paragraph A,
”except those who served in an honorary capacity”. The reading of the consti is correct but there are
exceptions.​ Already, I want to introduce the exceptions – not only here, but in another regulation I am asking the
team to produce for me.

J. De Castro: Okay. Are you done? ​The exception you mentioned is subject to interpretation…

CJ Sereno: May I request that I be allowed to present my slides now? So that everyone—the entire nation—have an
understanding of the SALN law.

J. De Castro: Excuse me. Before you do that, I am still in the process of asking you questions so please do not interrupt!

1:20-1:30 Dela
Rosa
CJ Sereno
- introduces 2 laws that are exceptions to the constitution
- RA 3019: defines public officials who do not receive compensation
- RA 6713: excludes those who are temporary workers
- While everyone who assumes office after 30 days a statement under oath of SALN must be given, only those
permanent & receiving compensation must submit SALN upon assumption of office and must be reckoned on the 1st
day of service except only those who are permanent

J. Leonardo-De Castro
- yes but we are concerned about the procedure and that is the submission of SALN 30 days of assumption of office as
a public officer/employee
- SALN must be reckoned as of the end of the preceding year

CJ Sereno
- Civil Service Rules: in case of non compliance, there must be compliance directive and nonfiler must comply within 3
days before any showcase order can be made and this is also true for the court
- Public officer/employee must file SALN within 30 days and must be reckoned from termination of office

J. Leonardo-De Castro
- You are required to submit a SALN which you did in 2010
- SALN signed July 2010 but you wrote a letter to JBC. Yesterday you submitted your SALN for 2006 but deliberately
you did not use the term “sworn” SALN because you submitted a SALN that is not signed or notarized

CJ Sereno
- but JBC did not require me to submit my 2006 sworn SALN, they requested me to submit assets & liabilities without
being notarized/signed during my application
- I only used a downloadable form as of 2006 as you can look at the signature portion it is 2010, so it is a metric tool
that JBC used
- It has to do with tax deposits & income tax declaration so that SALN is not the SALN contemplated by law but
another measurement tool of JBC
- I came from a private sector so that SALN is not sworn for my application to the JBC. That is not the SALN that is
under the SALN Law

J. Leonardo-De Castro
- As an associate justice you submitted a SALN on 2010 but it was for the year 2009
- Going back why is your 2010 SALN dated with 2006?

CJ Sereno
- it stated 2006 because I forgot to delete the 2006 because it is a form but it is for 2010
- They wanted it fast so I just downloaded a form, filled it up, and faxed it

J. Leonardo-De Castro
- you resigned June 2006 from UP. You are required to file SALN as of that date (date of resignation)
- But you are still in UP until April 2006

Reading of the SALN (2006 in form BUT signed July 2010) Doctor

De Castro​ - Why choose a printed SALN for Dec 2006? It would have been easier to get a 2010-printed SALN.

Sereno​ - Only 2006 form was available and downloadable.

DC​ - You failed to change the printed date from Dec 2006 to 2010.

Sereno​ - Regardless of inconsistencies, the written date controls.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DC​ - You were appointed Associate Justice of the SC. Within 30 days of assumption of office, a SALN must have been
filed. You resigned June 1, 2006 (from UP Law), so you were no longer a government official as of December 31, 2009
and this (SALN) is now no longer a printed date. The date 09-20 was handwritten. When u assumed office in August
2010, you filed your SALN September 2010 (meeting the 30-day requirement) but the sworn statement of SALN is
that of Dec 31, 2009. It should have been dated between Aug-Sept 2010 (pero ang sinubmit mo yung dec 31 2009 eh
hindi ka na govt employee at the time);

Sereno​ - This is the entry SALN after taking of the oath wherein the requirement must be the SALN as of the end of
the preceding year.

DC​ - When you assume office, SALN must be reckoned as of the day of assumption of office and not several months
before (Dec. 2009) because there could have been assets and liabilities at the time which won't be found in september
2010 (may gap of 8 months); that will not reflect accurately your SALN as of Sept. 2010.

Sereno​ - The law only says na it must be within 30 days after assumption of office; No requirement that the statement
of assets must be within that month. The fact that 2009 figures were given shows that I have given even more
information and proof that I have no ill-gotten wealth.

DC​ - "​within 30 days after assumption of office; statement of which must be reckoned as of the first day of service​"
Implementing code of conduct and ethical standards for public official​ (mentions when to file and the reckoning
point) ​rule 7 sec 1 par B​; kaya upon assumption of office - yan ang base point to determine whether you have
acquired unexplained wealth kasi yun yung time na you entered the service

Sereno​ - This is a unique reading by you of the IRR and not the law itself. in September, my husband and I must have
accumulated income from Jan-Sept 2010, within that period we did not measure because of the tax implication (kaya
nga ang filing of SALN is after filing of taxes). Moreover, I filed another SALN for December 2010 (again giving more
information/proof for the government).

1:40-1:50 Dolatre
De Castro:​ Why did you choose a printed SALN for December 2006, 4 years before 2010? It would be much easier to
get one that is more recent?

Sereno:​ Only the 2006 form is available and downloadable and I was asked to submit it ASAP.

De Castro:​ The SALN which you filed is dated Dec 31 2006 and you’re saying now that you failed to change the
printed date.

Sereno:​ The written date controls regardless of the printed date.

De Castro:​ You were appointed Associate Justice of the SC and should have filed your SALN within 30 days from
assumption of office. You resigned on June 1, 2006, so you were no longer a government official as of Dec 31, 2009.
This is now no longer a printed date. The date 09 after 20 was handwritten.

When you assumed office on August 2010 and was required to follow the law which requires you to file your SALN
from assumption of duty, you filed your SALN on September 2010. With respect to the date, it is within 30 days.
However, your sworn SALN is dated Dec 31 2009, when the law requires you to submit a SALN upon assumption
office. It should have been dated between August and September 2010. You submitted a SALN dated Dec 31, 2009
when you are no longer a government employee at the time. May I know your answer?

Sereno: ​This is the entry SALN after having taken my oath and the requirement is as of the end of the preceeding year
so it must be as of the end of Dec 2009 even if it is already 2010.

De Castro:​ I read to you the law. It says the SALN must be reckoned as of the date of assumption of office. It cannot be
several months before. There could have been assets and liabilities between Dec 2009 and Sept 2010 which could not
be found in your September 2010 SALN. There is a gap of 8 months. It won’t accurately reflect your statements of
assets and liabilities when you assumed office because your SALN is dated 8 months before, when you were still
outside government service.

Sereno:​ The law only says it must be within 30 days after assumption of office. Nowhere does it say that it must be
the SALN within that month. It is not wrong for me to to have given the government a better chance and better tools
to assess whether I will be hiding ill-gotten wealth because I am giving them more information than you are
proposing. The law only says within 30 days and not as of that date.
De Castro:​ The provision I read to you earlier says “within 30 days after assumption of office a statement of which
must be reckoned as of his first day of service” and your first day of service was August-

Sereno:​ May I find out what law you are reading, Justice De Castro?

De Castro: ​This is the Implementing Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials. It mentioned when to
file and when the SALN must be reckoned.

Sereno:​ Can you give us time to refer to our own IRR?

De Castro:​ This is Rule 7, Sec. 1, Paragraph b. Let me explain why it must be “upon assumption of office”. Because that
will be the base point for determining whether you have acquired unexplained wealth. That is the time you entered
service and so that is your assets and liabilities as of the time you assumed office, not 8 months before.

1:50-2hrs. Domingo
This section revolves around the following provision of law:

Rule 7, Section 1(B) of the IRR of the Code of Conduct And Ethical Standards for Public Officials (RA 7613)
RULE VII: PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
(b)The above documents under the Code must be filed
(1) ​Within thirty (30) days after assumption of office, statements of which must be reckoned as of his first day of service​.

Justice De Castro read this section to CJ Sereno, stating that the mandate of the law is very clear- Sereno should have
submitted her SALN within 30 days after she assumed office. According to De Castro, the assumption of office is the
reckoning point for filing the SALN to determine whether or not there is ill-gotten wealth, not 8 months before as
what Sereno did.

CJ Sereno remarked that De Castro’s reading of the IRR is “unique”. She stated that by September, she and her
husband would have accumulated income from Jan.-Sep. when she filed within the reglementary period. Within that
period, they cannot measure our income and liabilities due to tax computation. That is why the annual SALN must be
filed after computation of taxes. Sereno also pointed out that within September and December 2010 she filed another
SALN so she actually provided more data that government can use to determine whether or not she acquired
ill-gotten wealth.. According to Sereno, she followed what is government regulation. It must be as of the end of
December 2009 (citing Atty. Vidal).

Justice De Castro counters that it does not make sense that the starting point for the SALN is 8 months before. Because
during the period of 8 mos, a public officer may have incurred liabilities and acquired assets even before he/she
assumed office (thus not being reflected in the SALN upon assumption of office). There might be omissions within this
8 mos. period. This is why the regulation is issued in the way stated in the IRR. Also, IRR’s have the force and effect of
law, being a form of subordinate legislation.

CJ Sereno went a bit ballistic. She called De Castro’s interpretation (with all due respect) as “ABSURD,
UNREASONABLE, DOESN’T MAKE SENSE, and OPPRESSIVE”. She narrated that when she assumed office in August
2016, she immediately prepared for the oral arguments of the Hacienda Luisita case. According to Sereno, it cannot be
reasonable to require a public official to deal with such a busy caseload, and require him or her to make a
comprehensive SALN at the same time. But this is in fact what she and her husband did without any unnecessary
delay- as they calculated for assets and liabilities, and she made a rundown of bank accounts and a list of valuations
and debts. Lastly, she pointed out that this case is for ill-gotten wealth, which the SolGen failed to establish a case for.
She reiterated how absurd, unreasonable, and oppressive De Castro’s interpretation is.

De Castro countered by reading Sereno’s own dissent in a PS Bank case made during the Corona impeachment (De
Castro admitted she forgot the name of the case). Sereno wrote “Under the law, failure to comply is a prima facie
evidence of unexplained wealth, which may lead to a dismissal of the public officer.” Thus, under Sereno’s own words,
she gave a presumption.

Sereno countered this as “pro forma nitpicking”. She stated that De Castro lifted it without context. She said that such
“failure to comply” must be indicative of a dishonest lifestyle- which does not apply to her.

De Castro once more went to the IRR (cited in the beginning of this digest). She stated that the law is clear. She stated
that the SALN must be reckoned with at the first day of service, not 8 months before as what Sereno did. Sereno, for
the third time, called the interpretation “absurd, unreasonable and oppressive”, once more saying that it is unfair if
public officials are given only a short amount of time to make and file their SALNs in the midst of a hectic and busy
schedule. Plus, what she did was to give more data to the government. De Castro said that the public official is given
30 days to do so, a reasonable time she believes, to which Sereno decried that De Castro is nitpicking.

This section ends with Justice Bersamin asking for the table of Sereno’s counsels to minimize unnecessary
movements as he is being disturbed and distracted. After a short break where Sereno ordered some chairs to be
moved beside her so her counsels can sit at her side, De Castro raised the issue of the July 23, 2012 letter of Sereno,
about Atty. Richard Pascual’s (JBC) demand for her to file her SALNs.

2 hr.- 2:10mins. Dy

July 23, 2012 letter.

De Castro: In Atty. Richard Pascual phone call of JBC, follow up on a Friday July 20, to submit previous SALN
1995-1999. Academe records the SALN submitted was more than more than 15 years old, infeasible to return other
files. What about SALN closer to 2012? Substantial compliance of JBC is at least 10 years before 2012 based on law
and regulations of SALN. 2002-2011 (decastro counted from 2002 to 2011 as in inisa-isa niya, kinda funny) While CJ
justified non submission of SALN from 15 years ago, why did she not submit those which are much recent? Compared
CJ’s case to other justices who actually complied with the requirement of JBC. Where was 2002-2006 SALN? Dec 2005
and june 2006 were the dates of submission.

Sereno: Questioned what De Castro said that only 10 SALNs are required by JBC, said JBC always required all SALNs.
Sereno added that J.Peralta saw the SALN submissions, one by one, which already included Sereno’s; this means
Peralta knew she submitted. Also, J. Abad only submitted 5? But Abad’s case, they used the defense that the records
cannot be found anymore (same thing she’s saying). JBC actually said it was already a substantial compliance. Even
Sen. Escudero said that as long as there is an attempt to comply with requirements ok na.

De castro: answer my q (weird siya no)

Sereno: tf u kept insisting JBC required SALN for 10 years, but JBC requires all. Essentially she's saying she submitted
everything she had because wala na siya records ng iba. UP college of law said wala sa file ni Sereno SALN niya. There
was a deadline she had to comply with, kaya she passed what she had. Dean Pangalangan looked for Reqs in UP and
even in CSC, to no avail. Despite this, JBC deemed it sufficiently complied.

De Castro: u r not answering my q

Sereno: I have to put it in context. This is equal protection, if it applied with Pangalanan, if it applied with others, then
I’m not the only one who benefitted. Even, Justice Lagman said “categorically, Sereno complied.” (minsan she drops
rando names to prove her point)

Decastro: In 2012, The Office of Recruitment Selection and Nomination said: J. Sbad, Bautista, Brion, Cagampang-De
Castro, etc : Complete Reqs. Maria Lourdes Sereno (full name wow) complete BUT may note, (she said she found it
misleading), acknowledging na the academe gov’t records are 15 yrs old. She argued that In this page, all candidates
had complete. Except Sereno, na may note. It doesn’t say SALN but its about your gov’t records. This note does not say
u fulfilled SALN Reqs. Ikaw lang may remark. (tbh magulo argument niya d2)

Heres my copy of the doc, paxerox mo give me back my copy (LOL PETY)

Sereno: You’re misleading the public. In at least 4 docs J. Peralta knew her situation: Nagsabi nako na infeasible
maretrieve records ko. Also, marami samin wala complete SALN.

2:10 – 2:20 Gayya

On the non-viability or impossibility of recovering her records:

CJ Sereno shows 4 documents demonstrating that Justice Peralta knew that she had already said that it was infeasible
to retrieve all her records. Justice De Castro replied that the record is a subject of another administrative matter
where they have asked the JBC to submit their comment on the record because the document is inconsistent. De
Castro further claims that the document is a pending matter, and that they are not keeping it away from the public
because the investigation is not yet complete. The issue, as De Castro maintains, is whether Sereno complied with the
requirement of the law as to the submission of the SALN and whether Sereno was truthful to the JBC.

CJ Sereno then argued that there were​ 11 instances​ where the JBC could have objected to her incomplete submission
of the SALN. In those 11 instances, Peralta was available to object 10 times, ​yet no one objected​ to the fact that she
submitted only her 2009, 2010, 2011 SALN, up to the signing of my shortlisting letter.

De Castro claimed that not all of the members were given a copy of Sereno’s July 23 letter. But CJ Sereno insisted that
it was distributed to all the members. In that letter, it was stated: “considering that my​ government records in the
academe were more than 15 years ago,​ it is reasonable to conclude that ​it is infeasible to retrieve all those files.”

Acting CJ Carpio then interfered, arguing that the implication of the her letter was that if the records were less than 15
years, then she will be able to recover those. But CJ Sereno counter-argued that ​Richard Pascual, in his phone call,
only asked about her SALN in the years 1994-1999.​ According to Carpio, this suggests that Pascual is only
interested in the 15 year-old records than the more recent ones.
De Castro then averred that it is CJ Sereno’s obligation to produce these documents, and that she should not merely
relying on Pascual’s demand. De Castro disputed the fact that CJ Sereno ​did not file a single SALN from UP, despite
her 20 years of teaching in the institution.​ CJ Sereno then explained that since she started teaching, she moved
residences 7 times, one of which was abroad. She also admitted that she has not been a religious keeper of her UP
documents.

2:20-2:30 Gohoc

Sereno: The minutes will show that any of the members could’ve ask me anytime. There was no such clarification.
What am I to do? I don’t even know how the JBC was looking at my application.

De Castro: You didn’t submit a single SALN when you applied for CJ. You were required to file during the 20 years that
you were in UP and you want to compare that with us. You only submitted 2009-2011. 2009 is even very irregular
because you were not in government service in Dec 2009 yet when assumed office in the Supreme Court, you didn’t
submit a SALN as of Aug 2010.

Sereno: I dispute the use of the word “irregular”.

De Castro: Okay, sticking to the facts, instead of submitting as of date the date you assumed office, you submitted a
SALN 8 months before you assumed office. Thats a factual statement, let the court decide.

Sereno: I did not submit to the JBC?

De Castro: When you assumed office you submitted a SALN as of Dec 31 2009. When you applied for CJ you should’ve
submitted as of Aug 2010.

Sereno: 2009 SALN was completely accepted by JBC.

De Castro: You mentioned you had problem with taxes that’s why you were not able to date your SALN as of Aug 2010
that was your explanation. Let’s leave it at that.

Sereno: You mean if i have already a 2009 SALN on file with Clerk of Court I have to execute another one in 2012 and
date it as of Sept 2010? Is that what you’re saying?

De Castro: Not the point. What you should’ve submitted was Aug 2010 and not Dec 2009.

Sereno: So your point is that it’s not an acceptable entry SALN?

De Castro: From my reading of the law, that’s my conclusion.

Sereno: So it was a defective submission to the clerk of court, that’s your point?

De Castro: When you assumed office in Aug 2010 and you submitted for Dec 2009...

Sereno: I was already with the court. I have to make a computation again, is that it?

De Castro: You were not required by law to submit a SALN as of Dec 31 2009. So why is it you have a Dec 31 2009
SALN? What is that for?

Sereno: Your honor if there was any problem with my SALN CJ Corona should have called my attention under the
procedures. Mali yung entry sa SALN mo, masyadong maaga bakit Dec 2009 e reading ko ng batas kung end 2009
pwede na yun as entry SALN kasi yun naman usually. Yun ang hiningi talaga.

De Castro: You are asked about your compliance. Don’t blame other people for your failure to comply.

Sereno: That’s the reality. Justice De Castro, I never knew what was happening inside the JBC. Now if they consider
that as sufficient, then that’s it. How could I have second guessed what Richard was conveying to me? Everything was
in good faith. I never knew what they talked about. If they thought the 3 SALNs weren’t enough then they should have
struck out my name but they did not and they had 11 chances to strike out my name.

De Castro: So you’re saying it’s the JBC’s fault?

Sereno: There’s no fault. It was a perfectly legitimate act.

De Castro: When you submitted your SALN for CJ you only submitted 3 which was 2009 when you were not in
government yet. 2010 & 2011 when you were an associate justice and not a single SALN from UP.
Sereno: If JBC had said sorry you’re dropped, I would’ve accepted that.

De Castro: But you wrote a letter that you cannot find them.

Sereno: Because I was told on Friday and I was required to submit all on Monday.

De Castro: But you had a SALN of 2006 when you applied in 2010.

Sereno: It’s not a 2006 SALN! The written date prevails over the printed date.

De Castro: So if you really went to UP you could’ve readily gotten 2002..

Sereno: How could I have gone to UP I was working in the SC we’re busy. I called UP they said its not in your 201 (?)
please write.

De Castro: We were all working in the SC but we were able to produce.

Sereno: I left UP a long time ago.

De Castro: Even my SALN in the Sandiganbayan I was able to produce. I didn’t make an excuse. If you’re applying for
the highest post will you take that attitude that you had no time?

Sereno: But that’s the truth. If they had said we will give you one month two months, but they said by monday. So
what do I do? The only feasible step was call. UP said maybe it’s in the central … (something) … should write to them.
But if I write to them it would already be Monday. Richard was trying to ask me where was your 1995 etc etc. i said
okay it’s difficult to to look for them, I consider myself during my time in private sector that those requirements are
not applicable to me.

De Castro: So why submit Dec 31 2009 when you’re not yet a member?

Sereno: It’s as of end! I am reporting it. I am entering government. Mr. Government this is how my assets look like.
Kaya mo naman imeasure kasi yung tax filings kumpleto na as of april 2010. Kung mali po yun sana sinabihan ako ni
Baby Vidal or CJ Corona. Walang nagsabing kulang o mali.

De Castro: The point is the… uhm…

Sereno: Regulations state that the head of office should tell me kung kulang. Compliance procedure under rule 7 of the
IRR of RA6713 which was what you were citing.

2:30-2:40 Gonzales
Sereno: Kung kulang yung SALN dapat yung Head Office sinabihan ako. The same IRR you are citing Justice Tess.

De Castro: Ok. But will that excuse you from not filing your SALN just because you were not asked to do that?

Sereno: Di naman po ako humihingi ng excuse sa non-filing ko. Non-filing saan po? JBC or UP? Sa JBC, sila po ang
nagdesisyon.

De Castro: When someone is charged in Court for not filing a SALN. Can she make the excuse that “I was not asked to
file my SALN?” Is that a valid defense?

Sereno: Ano po ito? Theoretical context?

De Castro: CJ Corona was not asked to do that and yet he was impeached.

Sereno: Yung sa kanya, the issue is ill-gotten wealth.

De Castro: The impeachment of CJ Corona, there was no finding of ill-gotten wealth. The issue is the omission of filing
the SALN.

Sereno: CJ Corona - Merong discrepancy sa filed SALN and sa nakitang wealth sa kanya.

De Castro: was there a trial re. where that money came from? There was none. All I’m saying is that you keep on
making excuses. You blame everyone.

Sereno: Di po ako nagbblame.

De Castro: The point here is this: Did you religiously file your SALN when you applied as CJ. Remember, when the
application for CJ was open, that was a month after Corona was removed from office. It was all about SALN. So JBC
should have been very strict about the SALN. So we’re trying to find out if the JBC applied the requirements to you.
And WoN you represented truthfully to the JBC that you complied with the law.

Sereno: Sabi po hindi grave abuse of discretion itoNagtataka po amo, anone basis nito?
De Castro: I have another question. The 2006 SALN is readily available to you.

Sereno: Di nga po yun ang aking 2006 SALN. I used a form, printed, drawn from the website of the CSC that’s why it’s
not notarized and dated 2010. Di po yun young sinusubmit sa UP.

De Castro: So even if it is 2010 why didn’t you submit it to the JBC?

Sereno: DI NGA PO KASI YUN SALN required under the law. They use that to look at the tax filings.

Justice Leonen: May I ask one of your assistants to look at your net worth in 1999. You were a professor of UP College
of Law. As a professor, you had a rank. In 1999, what was your rank as a professor?

Sereno: I’ll check.

Leonen: Let’s assume it is Associate Professor. Your duties was to teach. Correct?

Sereno: Yes.

Leonen: In 2000, you took a leave. Why?

Sereno: I wanted to explore other opportunities.

Leonen: So in 2000, you did not have a teaching assignment? Same year, you were not a member of any of the law
complex?

Sereno: Yes, I was not given any project.

Leonen: In 2000 to 2006, this was your status? You were on leave at UP? And your vinculum as a government official
was to UP and not other?

Sereno: Yes

Leonon: So in 2000, no one could have bribed you to give a good grade?

Sereno: Di po yata nabbribe ang UP professors.

Leonon: Assuming, nobody could because you were not a professor.

Leonen: So regardless if the SALNs were there, did you in the years 2000 to 2006, did you steal any money in UP?

Sereno: No po. Di po kata. I had no ties.

Leonen: In 2000, the Dean was Dean Pangalangan. Could you say he appointed you to any administrative office?

Sereno: He could have but he didn’t. I was not appointed.

Leonen: On the basis of integrity, would you have commit theft, bribery, etc.

Sereno: Di po. I was on leave.

Leonen: Can we have your net worth in 1999?

Sereno: 98 po ang last. 1.84Million.

Leonen: Chief, that’s lower than my net worth now. In any case, what’s your net worth now? I’m assuming it’s joined
with your husband.

Sereno: It must be around 20M.

2:50-3hrs. This whole segment is a discussion to clear out the confusion of when Sereno was actually on leave and it’s Josef
exact periods, brought about by Leonen’s general statement that Sereno was on leave from 2000-2006.

Calida is now being questioned by Justice Peralta. In relation to Leonen and Sereno’s exchange, Peralta brought up
and inquired into Sereno’s participation in the FIATCO cases.
Peralta: “I am asking you, [from] the documents she would show, that she recieved income or fees from FIATCO
starting from 2004... she was a counsel of the government? representing the government in FIATCO cases? (Yes). And
does she receive millions of pesos, in fact in dollars but then converted to PH pesos? (Yes). And she started receiving
all these fees in 2004, 2005, 2006? (Yes).”
Peralta then made his point and rebutted Leonen’s prior Q&A by saying: “So now I will go back to my first question: if
she was on leave and still a government official, and she earned millions of pesos in 2004, 2005, and 2006, was she
mandated under the law and the constitution to declare her income in the SALN and therefore it was important for
her to file the SALN, it was that the income derived from FIATCO and those declared in the SALN, would show how
much taxes she should have paid. So she was mandated after all to file her SALN, in 2004 2005 and 2006.”

Justice Jardeleza is now talking to Calida about the periods when Sereno was really on leave.
Jardeleza: “Referring to annex D of sol gen's petition. This is a letter from Angela Escoto, director of the human
resources development office university of the Philippines diliman. “This is a certification, in compliance with the
subpoena duces tecum dated Nov. 23 2017, in the order of the committee on justice of the house of reps. a pertinent
part of this up cert: the chief justice's 201 records show that she was on official eave on the following years.” This
raises a very important question of fact with respect to the questions of justice leonen and the answers of the chief
justice on the periods on when she was on leave. The first entry shows that the chief justice was on leave from june 1
2000 to may 31 2001, then a series of other periods.”

Jardeleza expressed his concerns about Leonen’s prior Q&A and how they made it seem like Sereno was on leave for
the entire period of 2000-2006. Sereno makes it clear that Leonen did not categorically say that she was on leave for
the entire 6 years and that Leonen was specific on the periods. Leonen then explains that his point was on the context
of integrity and not the exact dates

Jardeleza: “The first entry shows that the chief justice was on leave from june 1 2000 to may 31 2001, then a series of
other periods. The impressions created by the questions of leonen and your answers is that for the full year 2000 up
to 2006, you were on leave.”
Sereno: “No I think justice leonen was clear on the periods of when I was on leave, he did not make any categorical
statements that from 2000-2006 I was fully on leave.
Leonen: “I might have said from 2000 to 2006 but my point was not about the exact dates, i made another point. my
questions were relating to the context of integrity. (so you are not saying that she was on leave for six years?) yes,
because I knew there was a gap.”
Carpio: “The chief justice was not on leave for the entire period of 6 years, it was intermittent.”
Sereno: “There was a period when I went back from 2000 up to 2002 I was fully on leave, I returned for a short
period, and then I left again in 2003 and I never returned. So between may 21 2002 up to 2003 I was on official leave.
So there was a gap there and then after that I was completely on leave.”

3hr.-3:10mins. Lagasca

It begins with a questioning of CJ Sereno’s part-time job as a professor in the UP College of Law by Justice Jardeleza.

In the span of January 1, 2000 to May 31 , 2000.

Sereno would get paid by the month, except there was no filing of SALN recorded. Yet Sereno says she did file them
and it’s just not on the record. She asserts this very strongly.

Now the Justice asks about her SALN in 1986 in which Sereno replied that she filed it correctly on that year but was
unable to provide a copy. She continues to say that she filed her SALN even with the fact that there was no record, in
fact she says the government record is mistaken and it’s not her problem that they couldn’t find a copy.

She doesn’t keep a copy for SALN every year. She changed her residence 7 times and thought that she would never
return to government work after 1989, so there was no reason in keeping a copy. Jardeleza then asks if nobody tried
to remind her of filing her SALN and Sereno said no one ever told her that she didn’t file her SALN, neither does she
remember if anyone tried to remind her of filing her SALN in 1986.

(The supposed SALN was filed 30 years ago so I think it’s reasonable that she was unable to find a personal copy-
Raynan)

3:10-3:20 Lagman
(cont. of J. Jardeleza)

J. Jardeleza said that Sereno did not have a copy of her SALN during 1986 because she was not permanent at that time
(in UPCOL) and that is the reason why she did not file her SALN during that year. But Sereno said that she’s complying
with the SALN Law and filed all her SALN requirements without prejudice to her citation of IRR Rules and the law
itself where exceptions where to find it.

Sereno interposed a legal defense that she’s under compensation (but not full compensation as just what J. Jardeleza’s
proposition) during 1986 but on a temporary capacity and according to law, temporary capacity means excuse from
filing a SALN. Notwithstanding this, she still filed her SALN during 1986 despite not having a permanent status.

In the 11 instances that the government said that Sereno did not file her SALNs, Sereno kept on insisting that she did
file her SALN during those years and she said that the burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove such facts.

J. Jardaleza opined that from Jan 1 - May 31, 2000, Sereno did not file her SALNs from those years. Sereno countered
that she did file her SALN on those years, but the Court did not have the file. Sereno also admitted that she received
monthly salaries from those years.
J. Jardeleza also questioned the filing of Sereno’s SALN during 2002 despite the fact that she’s on leave half of the year
and established that, if you were on leave it means that you have no pay and therefore, you don’t have to file SALN.
But Sereno said that she earned partly in 2002 that’s why she filed.

Sereno also said that the she received her first PIATCO income from the government in 2004 and J. Jardeleza said that
in fact, the PIATCO income was for the years 2004 up to 2009.

3:20-3:30 Macalino
Justice Jardeleza was the first speaker here. He asked CJ Sereno that in your SALNs from 2004-2009 your income was
30.3M, then if you have a number you must have known how much you earn per year? CJ Sereno replies and says well
you cannot say because workload per year is different. Lastly he asks as of today, in the 11 alleged SALNs you did not
file, how many more have you dug up? CJ Sereno says only one, which is for 1989 which were not in her own files but
in some office in UP

Next speaker is Justice Tijam. He made some early averments that CJ Sereno was too sensitive in that she basis biased
on RED NECKTIE he wore during a flag ceremony. CJ Sereno brushed it off.

Justice Tijam then says he is happy she wants to take part in the hearings but says he is alarmed by the insinuations
that this is a hearing that involves morality (good vs. evil) but it is not, he promised this is a trial based on evidence,
law and Consti.

He also made a metaphor that CJ Sereno is like a kid who forgot to submit a HW because her parents did not remind
her so and her other classmates did not submit HW anyway. Such is not the right model as a CJ.

He lastly says that filing SALNs is mandatory in law and Consti as badges of honesty and integrity and through SALNS
is the only way Government can attest to such qualities. He hopes CJ remembers the previous members of judiciary
they dismissed because of such failure to file SALNs and that SC does not create a new precedent for impeachable
officers as to the failure to file SALNs.

Whatever happens documents will speak for themselves and that burden is shifted on CJ Sereno to overturn the
burden of evidence after petitioners filed the certification from UP and OMB that no SALNs by her were filed for 11
years

3:40-3:50 Malayo

CJ Sereno was claiming that the JBC has waived the requirement of filing SALN. She named Senator Escudero as
among the members who made such pronouncement. Justice Tijam wanted CJ Sereno to submit a copy of the minutes
of such JBC meeting because according to him, he could not recall any such statement. CJ Sereno said that she has all
the copies of the JBC en banc meetings, and in all those 11 meetings, she was continuously included in the shortlist
even when the JBC had the opportunity to remove her for the lack of SALNs filed. She also said that the basis of such
waiver in favor of her was the waiver of JBC on Dean Pangalangan’s lack of SALN; if such was applied to Dean
Pangalangan then the same rule should apply to her.

Justice Tijam then asked if, assuming for the sake of argument, that the JBC Executive Committee consented to
consider CJ Sereno’s submission of 3 SALNs as substantial compliance, is that authority an official act of the JBC
considering that the JBC en banc is not composed of the Executive Committee only but also includes the ex-officio
members. CJ Sereno answered that it was a unanimous decision by the JBC en banc, upon seeing the description of her
submission and upon believing that it was infeasible to retrieve the SALN, to include her in all the shortlists. There
were 11 chances to remove her but none of the chances were taken.

Justice Tijam then questioned the conclusiveness of JBC decision upon the Court. He said that JBC was not a
constitutional body but a constitutional office which is under the supervision of the Supreme Court. The purpose of
supervision is to ensure that JBC follows its rules, and such rules include the filing of all SALNs by a public
official/employee. CJ Sereno said that Supreme Court’s supervision cannot go into the merits of the decision of JBC.
She also said that even Justice Tijam acknowledged this in all his JBC rulings. And since they are taking about
compliance with rules, it is JBC’s rule on integrity that SALN is not a documentary requirement to prove such. And
throughout the entire history of JBC, if it includes an additional documentary requirements for submission, they were
always considered as evaluative tools; flexible, they can waive it or not, they have waived it for 14 out of 20
applicants. Nobody said that filing only 3 SALNs shows lack of integrity.

Justice Tijam then asked for the official action of JBC on her letter. CJ Sereno said that the official action was the
shortlist, in which she was included. She claimed that Justice Peralta was not “nalusutan”, as the latter’s words before
the House of Representatives, because the JBC looked at her submissions several times and such were considered as
substantial.

Justice Tijam clarified that the the lack of integrity being cited by the Republic is the non-filing of the SALN on one
hand, and the non-submission of the the SALN to the JBC. He said that CJ Sereno admitted that she did not file all SALN
as required, as proved by the Records but he questions her claim now that she could not locate them. CJ Sereno
replied that jurisprudence provides that Records has never been accepted as conclusive proof of non-filing. Justice
Tijam disagreed, saying that integrity is not founded on jurisprudence but on honesty, probity and truthfulness of a
person. But CJ Sereno said that the finding of integrity is lodged with the JBC. The moment that they submitted a
shortlist, that is a certification that the people listed are people of integrity, competence, probity and independence.

Justice Tijam concluded that the reason why CJ Sereno failed to submit SALNs was not because they cannot be located
but because she did not file them. But CJ Sereno refused to accept such conclusion. She cited the case of David v. SET
wherein the Court ruled that in quo warranto proceedings, the burden of proof lies on the party who filed the action.
Such burden was not discharged properly.

3:50-4hr. Mationg

Justice Noel G. Tijam v. CJ Sereno (and Atty.Poblador)

On Integrity

CJ Sereno is firm that there is ​no integrity issue involved​. That Integrity is a JBC matter which has been fully
addressed. Justice Tijam, however, said that CJ is a lawyer​ bound by the canons of professional responsibility​. That
she is justice​ bound by the canons of judicial ethics​. That she should be truthful and honest.

On SALN

Then Justice Tijam asked CJ if she remembers where her SALNs were notarized? To this CJ said it is impossible for her
to remember.

Justice Tijam enumerated the government agencies/offices to which CJ worked as a legal counsel from 1994-2008
(e.g., Office of Pres, Dept. of Agri., SolGen, Manila Intn’l Airport, WTO). From this, Justice Tijam questioned CJ if she do
not consider herself in public office. CJ answered that on those times she was​ hired as a lawyer with public
international trade background​ and not hired as a government official.

Justice Tijam also noted that on those times the SALNs filed were only for the years pertaining to 1994-1998, 2000,
and 2006. And these were proof that CJ was negligent in record skipping of her SALNs while under UP Law and under
the various government offices.

On her defense, CJ said she was not negligent for she ha​s no legal obligation to preserve all her documents for
more than 30 years​ (It has been 30 years since she started working in the government at the age of 26).

On Impeachment and Quo Warranto

Justice Tijam: You publicly proclaimed that you wanted a day in Court. This is your day in Court.

CJ: This is not my day in Court. You compel me!

JT: We did not compel you. The SolGen requested for oral argument we denied it. Suddenly, you filed a motion for oral
argument. I was against it since I don’t want this kind of spectacle… But you were insistent. As a matter of fact, it was
agreed that should you not appear we will cancel the oral argument.

CJ: My day in court is the Senate... The Senate will try the facts. The SC is not a trier of facts and you have no
jurisdiction over this quo warranto petition.

JT: Are impeachment and quo warranto mutually exclusive? (To this, CJ directed TJ to his counsel)

Atty. Poblador, counsel of CJ, stated that ​In re Gonzales​ and ​Fernan Case​ the Court said that for impeachable officials,
no other proceedings, may it be quo warranto or disbarment proceeding, criminal or administrative proceeding, in
questioning the qualification of a seating CJ, should proceed. The Impeachment Court is the proper court that should
take cognizance. Also, the grounds for impeachment are every broad.

On PET Rule (Qou Warranto)

TJ: In the event, evidence of protestant is overwhelming, can VP Robredo move to dismiss it on the ground that she is
an impeachable officer and can be removed only by impeachment?

Atty. Poblador: Different set of rule governs qou warranto. There is​ ​no parallelism​.

TJ: But under PET Rules it says “Rule 16. Quo warranto. – A verified petition for quo warranto contesting the election
of the President or Vice- President on the ground of ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines may be
filed by any registered voter who has voted in the election concerned within ten days after the proclamation of the
winner.” Is this a misplaced provision? Is this unconstitutional?

Atty. Poblador: That provision is based on the Constitution. That “the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice- President, and may
promulgate its rules for the purpose.”(Sec 4 Art VII)

TJ: Then why would you argue that Senate is the proper court to determine qualifications?
4hr.-4:10mins. Medel

TJ: Can I just ask you a practical question? If we yield this jurisdiction to the Senate, will the decision of the Senate on
the qualification of respondent have jurisprudential value for the purposes of the bench and the bar?

Poblador; Yes, because it is the final arbiter with regard to the grounds for impeachment.
TJ: I’m talking about the qualifications for the office

Poblador: Yes, if the House is absurd enough to include the question of ineligibility in its articles of impeachment. If
the senate rejects that particular article, then the decision of the Senate will bind everyone.

TJ: I agree with you that impeachment and quo warranto might lead to the same effect which is the removal of the
respondent. But you’re saying is that even without that Articles of Impeachment, being approved by Congress – even
without the Articles of Impeachment being forwarded to the Senate, what you’re saying is we should exercises judicial
restraint and await what happens in Congress? Is that what you are saying? And we should not exercise jurisdiction?

Poblador: No, what I am saying, whether or not there are impeachment proceedings on going, the SC should not take
cognizance of a quo warranto petition which may constitute a ground for impeachment because only the Senate –
only the House – can initiate and file the complaint with the Senate – and only the Senate can decide with that.

TJ: I did not hear your answer whether impeachment or quo warranto is exclusive. Will one exclude the other? Or it
can go together?

Poblador: In the case of impeachable officials like the CJ, there can be no quo warranto petition where the end result
can remove the CJ because the CJ can be removed only by impeachment.

TJ: Father Aquino of the San Beda University Graduate School made an interesting comment about quo warranto. If
under the PET rules, the President and Vice President can be subjected to quo warranto, why should the CJ be
elevated to a higher position and not be covered by quo warranto?

Poblador: As I have explained before, the President and the Vice President can be subjected to a quo warranto
petition because of express Constitutional mandate.

TJ: But when it refers to testing the qualification of public officers, it is always judicial in character. Quo warranto is
judicial in character. You go to the HRET, for example, the qualification of a member of Congress, you have the HRET
and it is elevated to the SC. Now, the SET, also decides on the qualifications; it is also elevated to the SC. So the
jurisdiction to ascertain qualifications about public official is really judicial in character. And you know pretty well
that the Senate is not judicial – it’s political in chara=cter.

Poblador: That’s true that quo warranto is essentially judicial, but that’s a general rule. This court has carved about
exceptions in favor of impeachable officials. And it’s true that the House and the Senate belong to a political
department but the framer of our constitution though in their wisdom that only the House and the Senate should
decide or resolve issues of impeachment. For example, why would the constitution…

TJ: If we exercise judicial restraint and abdicate jurisdiction to the Senate to decide on quo warranto proceedings, are
we not in fact violating the constitution?

Poblador: No, because precisely you have no jurisdiction over an impeachable offense. And I would add that lack of
qualification itself can amount to an impeachable offense.

TJ: What happens if it’s not pushed through? We can proceed with a quo warranto?

Poblador: Nevertheless no.

TJ: But you’re trying to say we should not act on a quo warranto because there is an impending impeachment which
may or may not happen.

Poblador: That is not my position. My position is that an impeachable official cannot be removed except by
impeachment, so if there’s no impeachment proceedings, the official should not be removed.

TJ: If the chairman of the COMELEC is not a full-fledged lawyer, is not a Filipino citizen, since the Chairman of the
COMELEC is an impeachable officer, the court, hands off, cannot entertain a quo warranto proceedings because the
chairman of the COMELEC is an impeachable officer. Is that what you are saying?

Poblador: That’s our position also. Because if for example that official does not have the qualification technically that
would amount to a culpable violation of the Constitution – assuming that the positions, which the constitution
requires a citizenship requirement for example – that would constitute a culpable violation of the constitution. The
proper forum is with the impeachment court.

TJ: One last question, Atty. Poblador. And I commend you for your dedicated service to the CJ. I noticed that the
Comment you filed was unverified. Of course I understand that there is not requirement that it should be verified, but
is there any particular reason? Are the contents of the Comments you’ve submitted to the court shown to the
respondent CJ before you filed it?

Poblador: Dealings with the CJ, especially relative to her preparations, are privileged. But I don’t think that the CJ will
object if I tell the court…

TJ: She said, yes. Now there are statements there that proved to be untruthful like a statement to the effect that the
other members of the court did not file their SALN and necessitated the Acting CJ Carpio to secure a certification from
the JBC to rebut that and also Justice de Castro got a certification to rebut that. I am just alarmed by that since it is not
verified by the respondent, that my send a signal that the respondent is not bound if there are any statements there
that are truthful.

Poblador: We submitted the verification of the CJ and we attached…

TJ: Did you submit entry materials for and in behalf of the CJ?

Poblado: Yes, under prevailing jurisprudence, if I file a pleading, and sign my name that is already…

TJ: I understand, but there’s a rule that requires verification to make it stronger that anything that is contained in the
pleading that is filed is truthful. There is a requirement to that effect, I’m just worried that the CJ might disown some
of the statements contained in the comment if it was unverified and there was no entry of appearance because she
can always say – and I talk about that based on experience because when there was an announcement that she was on
leave, it needed to be corrected that it was in fact that she was on indefinite leave. So we would like not to confuse the
public about it.

Poblador: Well, we have submitted the verification of the CJ and attached it to the Ad Cautelam Partial Manifestation
and Compliance, and then we reiterated that in the Ad Cautelam Compliance/Manifestation – that in fact satisfies the
second condition your Honor.

TJ: Thank you Atty, Poblador.

------
CJ de Castro: Since the CJ is dwelling on her letter dated July 23, 2010… Now there were red flags about this letter.

4:10hrs-4:20mins Medina

Justice De Castro interpellated again raising two comments:

First​, she pointed out the judicial notice of the red flags manifested and filed by the JBC and its secretariat before the
Court. Justice De Castro said that the matrix did not fully disclose the contents of the letter and showed only the
inability to retrieve school records and it did not mention about SALN. The question now is whether or not the letter
would fully appraise all the regular members—who did not receive the letter of CJ Sereno because only the ex-officio
were given the letter—about the contents of the letter re: failure to submit all SALNs;

Second​, on the position of CJ Sereno on the jurisdiction of the Court over the quo warranto. Justice De Castro stated
that the camp of CJ refraining from submitting the SALNs before the Court because according to them it is the Senate
impeachment court which has jurisdiction is problematic. Because if ever they’ll also raise in the Senate that
non-filing of SALNS prior to appointment is not an impeachable ground since the act was not committed during the
tenure of the CJ. If they succeeded, then there will be no chance that the CJ would be compelled to present her SALNS
and no one would know whether or not she complied with the Constitution and statutory requirement of filing the
SALN.

Atty Poblador replied that their position is that it is the Senate has the exclusive jurisdiction of all the defenses of the
CJ. If the senate accepts that pre-2012 SALNs can’t be basis for impeachment that does not mean that this Court can
take cognizance of the position because JBC and the President has taken position already—that is CJ has substantially
complied with the SALN requirement. The challenge here in fact is not on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.
Hence, the Court can’t set aside the recommendation of the JBC.

J. De castro asked if he is trying to say that JBC is infallible.

Atty Poblador said that based on jurisprudence the proper remedy is certiorari under expanded review of the Court
but it was not resorted to. The question now is whether the Court has the power to determine the qualification of the
CJ directly?

Justice De Castro replied that this particular issue will be deliberated by the Court. Next she requested CJ back on the
stand to ask about her 1998 SALN notarized and submitted on the Ombudsman only in 2003. She also asked
regarding the position of Chief Justice Sereno as Deputy Commissioner of Commission of Human Rights because her
PDS did not mention the year.

CJ replied that she believed that she filed it to UPHRDO and the latter sent it to Ombudsman. She stated that there’s no
explanation on the delay of 5 years but nevertheless SALNs were filed. As for the pds, she has no access to the
particular documents because she was not informed that the Court would look into this. It is in fact beyond the
petition
4:20 hrs-4:30mins Mejia

Leonardo-De Castro and CJ Sereno:

De Castro: In your PDS, you mentioned that you’re a deputy commissioner of the CHR. When was that? Because your
PDS did not declare the period.

Sereno: It was a functional title. I dont have the exact details because you did not ask me to prepare for the PDS.

De Castro: So it was not a positional title? The PDS has a matrix that the information required that you must put your
“position title.” You mentioned there that you were a Deputy Commissioner of the CHR. Question, is there such a
position?

Sereno: If you’re going to look at the PDS was trying to condense, the CHR succeeded the Presidential Committee on
Human Rights. I was hired under the Presidential Committee as a technical consultant then a functional title of Deputy
Commissioner so I could vote for the then Commissioner. Then it morphed into the CHR. But the terms of reference to
be carried over were from the Presidential Committee. This is already outside of the petition! Is this a global roaming
event?!

De Castro: This is connected. I’d like to know if you held a permanent position there and if you filed the respective
SALN.

Sereno: No, it was not permanent.

De Castro: So you’re saying that there is no functional title of Deputy Commissioner?

Sereno: There is! Positional/Functional title. Just ask the CHR! The petition should only be about my UP stint, not the
CHR. I am not prepared for that and should not be examined for it.

De Castro: I just wanted to know if you filed your SALN when you were a Deputy Commissioner. Shiz men

De Castro: You also submitted documents stating that you were a lecturer in Murdoch University, University of
Western California, and Hague Institute of Law. Is that true?

Sereno: I was a lecturer for the Manila program of both Universities. ​I have evidence to show that. Again, I object! This
is not part of the petition. This is a global roaming event!

*sagutan silang dalawa*

Sereno: Basta what I submitted are true!!! … This is already beyond the petition. Do you want to go into my high
school records?!

De Castro: Just asking based on the Comment you attached to the documents. That’s all, chill.

Justice Bersamin and Solicitor General:

Bersamin asked the Sol Gen about the arguments of Sereno’s party against them. Sol Gen rejected their arguments
because they “did their homework.” Sol Gen said that they were able to get the SALNs from UP in just 9 days. No
reason why Sereno could not have gotten them.

Bersamin asked, “what’s the quantum of evidence for this kind of proceeding.” Sol Gen answered that quo warranto is
a special civil action and, therefore, mere preponderance of evidence is sufficient. Bersamin said that it’s too high,
substantial evidence lang daw dapat *audience laughed*

Bersamin discussed burden of proof and burden of evidence. Bersamin asked Sol Gen if they think you have
discharged burden of proof. Sol Gen answered yes. So, dapat daw burden of evidence shifts to respondents (Sereno).

Justice Bersamin and Atty. Poblador (Sereno side):

Bersamin asked Poblador to differentiate between their case and the ​Doblado case that they kept on citing. Poblador
answered that the two cases are the same and ​Doblado ​ruling should apply. In the Doblado case, he consistently filed
SALN for 18 years. But the OCA said that there was no SALN filed. Then, Doblado sent a letter to the Clerk of Court.
And Bersamin said, “There! There is the difference.” Poblador was like, “no, no, no.” Basically, in the Doblado case,
there was a certification. In the case of Sereno, there was none.

4:30 hrs-4:40 mins Pugeda

[Verbatim & Paraphrase]

-SOME CLARIFICATIONS-

Justice Bersamin​: The Certification is negative as far as the respondent is concerned? Negative about so many years?

Atty. Poblador​: I would not use the word “negative” because it is imprecise, I would rather go to the substance of the
certification, the certification, and I would cite another case, the case of Vitangcol…

Justice Bersamin​: Okay, anyway I am done with that question and thank you very much to both sides.

Acting CJ Carpio​: Now, Justice Bernabe.

Justice Perlas-Bernabe​: Thank you. Now under the Constitution, the eligibility requirements to become a Supreme
Court Justice are the age…a natural-born citizen…15 years practice…proven competence, integrity, and probity. Now
can the court determine one’s qualifications based on citizenship or age…based on the evidence on record, like for
example you have a member of the Supreme Court who is not a natural-born citizen based on his birth certificate, can
a petition for quo warranto oust this member of the court?

Atty. Poblador​: My position is that since it would lead to removal then the he correct remedy would be to go through
impeachment on the ground that the act of the seating justice in holding that position of justice is a violation of the
constitution so you can build a ground which is culpable violation of the constitution…which you can bring before
congress.

Justice Perlas-Bernabe​: So if nobody supports an impeachment proceeding or even file one then that member would
remain there but not eligible.

Atty. Poblador​: Well that begs the question because unless there is a finding in a proper proceeding that the justice is
not eligible then you cannot presume his ineligibility.

Justice Perlas-Bernabe​: Then the proper proceeding is a quo warranto, where evidence can be presented?

Atty. Poblador​: Too be precise, if the appointment is not complete…probably you can say quo warranto is proper
because it is before appointment but after it is removal through impeachment.
The law says that anyone who is holding a position is presumed to be lawfully appointed for as long as there is no
finding in the proper forum that there is lacking of eligibility you cannot say that a seating justice is not eligible.

Justice Perlas-Bernabe​: But the Supreme Court can make a finding of fact on the citizenship issue through a quo
warranto proceeding.

Atty. Poblador​: It can but … it can be submitted to Congress and be the basis for culpable violation of the Constitution.

Justice Perlas-Bernabe​: Okay, well that’s your answer… (Haha – Lolek)

How about proven competence, integrity, and probity, can the Court file an impeachable official based on these
qualifications?

Atty. Poblador​: Uh, no. In this case the JBC is tasked to determine those qualifications the Supreme Court cannot step
in unless on its expanded powers. The JBC must first determine and if it is not questioned then it must be final.

Justice Perlas-Bernabe​: As you know the words competence, integrity, and probity are preceded by the word
“proven”, now before which body should the applicant prove these?

Atty. Poblador​: The JBC then the president.

Justice Perlas-Bernabe​: Then how does the applicant prove her competence?

Atty. Poblador​: The JBC requires the submission of testimonial certifications from reputable government
organizations, IBP, etc. then it can make a discreet check and receive complaints.

Justice Perlas-Bernabe​: So you have the JBC rules and standard for these requirements?

Atty. Poblador​: Yes.

Justice Perlas-Bernabe​: Now, it is an admitted fact that the respondent failed to meet the required SALN all the years
she has been in the government service.

Atty. Poblador​: It is not an admitted fact. It is not a proven fact. The burden of proof has not been discharged.

Justice Perlas-Bernabe​: No, no. It is an admitted fact that before the JBC she was not able to file all her SALN,

Atty. Poblador​: On the contrary, there is evidence that she substantially complied with the SALN requirement.

Justice Perlas-Bernabe​: But, but not all?

Atty. Poblador​: Well the JBC made the determination that there was substantial compliance. Then we cannot take it as
an admitted fact that she did not comply.

Justice Perlas-Bernabe​: Then can we say that the shortlisting of the respondent is proof that she has substantially
complied?

Atty. Poblador​: Yes, yes. The shortlisting is a final act – a final determination.

Justice Perlas-Bernabe​: But, in your opinion is there a way to invalidate the JBC discretions?

Atty. Poblador​. Yes, through the expanded judicial power of overview as exercised in Jardaleza vs. Sereno where the
Supreme Court ordered the inclusion of Justice Jardaleza, which modified, altered the shortlist.

Justice Perlas-Bernabe​: So to you, grave abuse of discretion is not a ground for a quo warranto petition, there must be
a certiorari petition, and it cannot be one incidental to a quo warranto petition?

Atty. Poblador​: Yes.

Justice Perlas-Bernabe​: Assuming grave abuse of discretion can be a ground for a quo warranto petition, would you
agree that the grave abuse of discretion is attributed to the JBC?

Atty. Poblador​: Yes since the determination was made by the JBC, the charge must be addressed to the JBC…

Justice Perlas-Bernabe​: So you believe the JBC should have been included here?

Atty. Poblador​: Yes. It should have its day in court.

4:40 hrs-4:50mins Raginio

Martinez, J: ​Atty. Poblador, I am bothered by the statement of your client that she was forced to this oral argument. Is
it not a fact that she filed an ad ​cautelam ​motion asking for an oral argument?

[Martinez asked for the copy of said motion and made quite a scene by saying that he’s going to pay for the
distribution and xerox of the copy of the motion in order for the Filipino People to see that CJ Sereno was not forced
into the oral arguments - contrary to what has been impressed upon the Filipino People through the media. Atty.
Poblador tried to explain the context of CJ Sereno’s statement by saying that she only wanted her day in court which
was before the Senate. Again, Martinez got mad saying the Senate is not the court and he then chose to proceed to the
next question which was about W/N Sereno was threatening the Court when she asked during her exchange with
Justice De Castro “are the members of the court willing to take an oath also? That they should face trial in the future in
the event that SALNs will be discovered to be defective?” Martinez asked if such was a threat. Poblador answered it
was not and highlighted the fact that Sereno merely wanted to say that the policy behind the doctrine on removal of
impeachable officers through impeachment alone would be defeated.

Martinez claims that Sereno committed the fallacy of tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy) when she tried to
justify her non-filing of the SALNs by pointing to the other applicants doing the same. ​However, Atty. Poblador
argued: “The petition says the CJ was given favored treatment in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. That charge
made relevant her position that the substantial compliance rule was extended to everyone so the CJ could not have
been given preferential treatment. And the reason why we alluded to the status or the condition of the submission of
the other applicants was to show that the substantial compliance rule was applied uniformly. In fact it was extended
to 4 out of 20 and among the shortlisted of 8 candidates, 6 were extended that substantial compliance application. So
you see it’s not a fallacy. Our position alludes to the number of SALNs which the others did not submit. It is very
relevant.

Cagiuoa, J.:

Focused on the issue of prescription. Confirmed whether prescription for QW is still an act (by legislature under Civil
Procedure) or a rule (by the SC under Sec 11 Rule 66 of the Rules of Court). Poblador answered that the Rules of Court
superseded the Civil Procedure and the RoC has the force of law since such were promulgated in the exercise of the
SC’s constitutionally granted power. Under the RoC, even actions filed by the SolGen are subject to the 1 years
prescriptive rule.

Caguia further asks whether the 1 yr prescription rule is a rule whic the court cannot suspend (Court is known to
suspend its rules in the exercise of its discretion), to which Poblador answers that the rule on prescription should
issue since it does not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights and the passage of Rule 66 is squarely within
the scope of the rule making power of the SC granted by the Const.

4:50-5 hrs. Rocamor

SOME CLARIFICATION: a
J: In the cases of In re Gonzales and (?), it is pronounced that what you cannot do directly, you cannot do indirectly.
Just like disbarment, you cannot proceed a case against disbarment because the Justice would lose the qualification of
being a lawyer, thus circumventing the rule that Justices can only be removed by impeachment. Is that right?
Counsel for Respondent: Yes, your honor

ON THE ARGUMENT THAT IMPEACHMENT ONLY PERTAINS TO ACTS AS A SITTING JUSTICE WHILE QW PERTAINS
TO ACTS PRIOR TO APPOINTMENT.
Caguioa,J: Suppose a Justice committed murder and bribery, will the criminal case prosper?
Counsel for Respondent: No. The proper way to do it is that let the Justice be tried on impeachment first, and then
prosecute for the crimes after the impeachment.

Caguioa, J: Suppose a Justice committed the crimes BEFORE he or she is appointed as Justice, will the criminal case
prosper?
Counsel for Respondent: No. Similarly, impeach first, then prosecute.

Caguioa, J: Why is that? The SolGen seems to point out that the crimes affects the integrity of the Justice.
Counsel for Respondent: It is to protect the judiciary. It is not about the Justice but about the independence of the
Judiciary.

Caguioa, J: Because, if we are to rule otherwise, it would give the SolGen unfettered discretion to proceed against
Justices regarding about as long as it is related to integrity and the SolGen would do so anytime because according to
him the 1 yr prescriptive period will not apply. It is like giving him a sword to proceed against our collective heads.
Counsel for Respondent: Exactly, your honor.

5:00-5:10 Sampang
Caguioa, J.​: What is being prayed for in this quo warranto? It is to oust a member of the Court?
Atty. Poblador​: Yes

Caguioa, J.​: Assuming for the sake of argument that the Court were to grant the petition and render the judgment
ousting , Do you agree with me that that will essentially mean that we have overidden the judgment of the JBC?
Atty. Poblador​: Yes because you have just ignored it, you did not even review the JBC finding because according to
the Sol Gen the JBC finding is irrelevant what you are being asked to do is to exercise a direct power... not proceeding
from the expanded judicial power of review... but the power to dismiss a fellow member of the Court, which you do
not have because your power to dismiss is limited only to judges of the lower courts.

Caguioa, J.​: So, here if the Court were to do that would the Court be exercising its power of supervision or its power of
control.
Atty. Poblador​: It would be exercising a power it does not have. The power to dismiss a justice of the Supreme Court.
Caguioa, J. ​: Alright

Caguioa, J.​: In a situation where it is not a quo warranto but a certiorari and a grave abuse of discretion only, can the
Court annul the determination of the JBC?
Atty. Poblador​: Yes it could attack the determination of the JBC. Yes theoretically it can even attack the appointment
of the President on the ground that the JBC disregarded the clear provisions of law
Caguioa, J.​: What particular provisions of law are we talking about? We're not talking about the requirements of age,
nationality. but other qualifications, correct?
Atty. Poblador​: Yes, other qualifications

Caguioa, J.​: And to your understanding of the JBC rules, is there a requirement for a SALN there?
Atty. Poblador​: It's not there. It was adopted only in the notices
Caguioa, J.​: So the rules by themselves do not provide for the submission of SALN, without denigrating the value of
the SALN.
Atty. Poblador​: It's only one of the things to consider in assessing the fitness
Caguioa, J.​: If I read the rule correctly, they actually go beyond just the submission of the SALN. They do interviews,
background checks to determine integrity precisely because integrity is not easily measured correct?
Atty. Poblador​: Yes.

Caguioa, J.​: So to recap if the court were to grant the petito it would be supplanting the JBC. Which according to you, it
does not have the power to do so.
Atty. Poblador​: Yes your honor and it cannot attack the JBC decision without making JBC a party and without giving
them their day in Court
[Context] San
Diego
Generally, qualifications for high-ranking officials of the three branches of government is embraced in a single
provision of the Constitution. It is the argument of SolGen Calida that this is not the case. Aside from the age and
experience requirement, competence, integrity, probity, and independence are also REQUIREMENTS to be a member
of the Bench.

Justice Velasco: What are the hallmarks of competence, probity, and independence?

SolGen Calida:

COMPETENCE​ - Able to discharge your functions as a judge, can be proven by a statement of background, schooling,
experiences in the field of law, testimonials;

INDEPENDENCE​ - He is not beholden to anybody (NOT EVEN TO THE PRESIDENT), can be proven by the decisions he
has made

PROBITY​ - Probity and Integrity are like “first cousins”

INTEGRITY ​- Honor and obey the law. Absence of any involvement in any scandal or controversy.

Justice Velasco:For appointments to the Bench, Par 3 Section 7 provides for additional qualifications?

SolGen Calida: Yes. In this case, these should be the first qualifications to be present.

Justice Velasco: Out of the four, you singled out the integrity on the part of the respondent. She does not have the
integrity to be a member of the high Court nor even the Chief Justice of the High Court.

SolGen Calida: Yes. She failed to submit her SALNs.

Justice Velasco: Does the JBC, by itself, has rule-making power under the Constitution?

SolGen Calida: Yes.

Justice Velasco: Do you think the High Court should approve those rules first?

SolGen Calida: Yes. Under the Constitution, the JBC is being supervised by the Supreme Court.

Justice Velasco: How about the Constitutional provision on the submission of SALN? Is it a qualification required for a
member of the Bench?

SolGen Calida: As part of the test of proving their probity and integrity, yes it is a requirement.

Justice Velasco: The JBC should’ve been made a party to this and there is a discussion what should be the proper
action to be instituted. Don’t you think that the JBC should be a party to this and the petition should be a certiorari
instead of a quo warranto?

SolGen Calida: In this case, the JBC was misled because of the information given to the members that the respondent
complied with all the requirements when in fact she did not. There is a good reason for the SolGen to file a petition for
quo warranto because of this.

5:10 -5:20 Zarate

Begins with J Velasco and Atty. Calida

J. Velasco asks Atty. Calida that the petition for QW is a way to challenge the actions of the JBC to which AC answers in
the affirmative, as AC says, there is good reason to do so because Sereneo is not eligible to sit as CJ.

JV points at that AC should file an memorandum to answer why it should be a petition for QW and not a petition for
certiorari. AC says he will file an answer in five working days.

Justice Leonen asks AC if AC’s client is the Republic. AC answers in the affirmative, JL asks if AC consulted with the
president, the speaker of the house, the senate, or the HOR with regards to filing the petition. AC answers no, as there
is no need to consult those mentioned above, petition was filed by the OSG alone as it was the duty of his office.

JL points out the phenomenon that a sitting justice will be ousted by a lawyer. AC says that it is not he who will oust a
justice as he will only initiate the case, the task is for the sitting justices to decide by majority vote of 8 out of 14
justices.

JL points out that there rests an independence of justices from the public and independence from each other, that a
justice is allowed to dissent against the majority opinion if he or she chooses. It is their duty to dissent if there are
ground for such.
JL points out that it will weaken the dissent of a justice with regard to the minority view if one party for government
is to file a case to oust a sitting justice on a ground that should have been taken into consideration by the JBC

JL mentions that AC has won all his cases as Solicitor General and asks AC if hypothetically the OSG loses, what should
be done to him. AC responded that the OSG should be fired as it is his duty to win cases.

JL presents a hypothetical scenario wherein there is corroboration between the OSG and the president, the
president/republic being his client after all, to win cases by making sure the justices seated at the SC are on the side of
the president.

Basically, it will e easier for the republic to win cases if most of the justices are on their side, serreno being one that is
vocal against the current administration, her office is being attacked so that the president can remove her from her
position and appoint a new CJ that will most likely be in his side

AC refuses to answer the hypothetical situation. But rather mentions that if the JBC acted in excess of their
jurisdiction then their decision should be challenged or else the JBC can haphazardly recommend persons ineligible to
hold office.

AC says that this is a case of first impression and JL says that true and it will create a precedent as the courts are not
just concerned about the present but also future cases that may prosper if the petition for QW is allowed.

Justice De Castro intervenes and ask Atty Poblador that if someone committed a serious crime like homicide or
murder is that a ground to question the appointment of an impeachable officer?

JDC asks Atty Poblador if the validity of appointment of the CJ is a prejudicial question? Before AP can answer, Justice
Tijam intervenes

5:20- 5:30 Sungcad

*addressing SolGen* ​J. Tijam: ​Just 2 questions so that i can sleep soundly tonight. SolGen Calida, if we abdicate
jurisdiction on quo warranto to the senate, no impeachable officer can be sued for quo warranto, alright? thank you.

*Addressing Atty. Poblador* ​J. Tijam:​ Normally, a litigant would like to choose a venue where her chances are bigger,
Correct?

Atty. Poblador:​ Yes, Sir

J. Tijam:​ Based on the articles of impeachment being drafted in congress -and which has not yet been approved by
plenary- there are more charges

Atty. Poblador:​ That's correct, your honor

J. Tijam:​ In impeachment rather than in this court where there is essentially one or two charges, Correct? So my
question is multiple choice... the respondent chief justice does not want the quo warranto before this court because
(a) it is the wrong procedure; or (b) the evidence is strong?

Atty. Poblador​: "A" It is the wrong procedure; and this honorable has no jurisdiction. I would like to discuss the
relative strength of evidence because that's a matter to be weighed with the senate.

J. Tijam​: *inaudible* of the respondent is that the evidence is not tenable at all. Why risk and go to the impeachment
court, where there are more charges?

Atty. Poblado​r: We believe your Honor that our evidence is strong.

J. Tijam:​ This is a matter of principle on the part of the respondent because it is the wrong procedure, you stand by
that?

Atty. Poblador​: "Wrong"? Yes. Wrong procedure and no jurisdiction

J. Martires​: Just 2 questions for Solicitor Calida. Solicitor Calida, would you agree with me na lahat ng tao may dibdib
at may kaba sa dibdib at lahat ng tao may ulo at katok sa ulo?

*audience laughs*

SolGen Calida:​ Yes, your Honor, I agree

J. Martires: ​Now would you consider it, a mental illness if a person always invokes God as the source of his strength?
The source of his inspiration? the source of his happiness? The source of everything in his life? Is that a mental
illness?

SolGen Calida:​ Not Necessarily your Honor

J. Martires:​ So... -I’m just making a follow up to that question that J. Velasco earlier asked- So, you would agree with
me that the psychiatrist made a wrong evaluation with respect to the psychiatric report of the chief justice?

SolGen Calida:​ Unfortunately i have not read the psychiatric report yet your honor.

J. Martires:​ You did not read it in the papers?

SolGen Calida​: I read it in the papers, but i have not seen the document your honor.

J. Martires:​ Thank you very much.

*Acting C.J Carpio asks if there are any more questions*

(Addressing Atty. Poblador)​ J. Jardeleza: ​Atty. Poblador, this is almost a housekeeping question. If you remember
awhile ago, I asked, "Can you submit the breakdown of the fees, the PIATCO fees of the Chief Justice from '04 up to
'09?"

Atty. Poblador:​ Yes your Honor

J. Jardeleza:​ And just one more point, I am very glad that the CJ has testified today because I go back to the question
of fact that has always bothered me. The SALN. Did she or did she not file it? And i will share with you share with you
my own definition of integrity. I don't have the author yet, but i can furnish it. "It is that integrity is doing the right
thing, even if no one is watching." I have always believed in that quote. And this - correct me if im wrong- this is the
first time, ever, that the chief justice has taken by the horns the question of did she or did she not file. Because even
your comment, i think it said something like "she has complied with all laws." This is the first time that the chief said,
"I filed," right, under Oath at that?

Atty. Poblador:​ yes your honor

J. Jardeleza:​ That's why i have a problem. I ask you and the SolGen to beef up your memo on the question of Burden
of Proof. Because it is almost like, I go back to the question, "Did the Chief File or not?" The government is saying she
did not 11 times, well now he filed 1 SALN, so maybe 10 times. She said she did file. I almost have a situation of "he
says, she says." So I would like the you to consider that the Chief Justice has made herself available today. And I know
both positions. We are not a trier of fact. But under our rules of evidence, and you don't have to be technical about
this, "the credibility of a witness, whom the triers of fact have listened to the demeanor of the witness, her interest or
lack of interest, the way she has testified" is going to be important." And I wish both sides, and again with all due
respect to your jurisdictional objections, with all due respect to the position that we are not a trier of fact, the reality
is this day, you have 14 members of the court, peers of the witness, who have listened to her make her side. Thank
you.

Acting CJ Carpio​: I have only one question Counsel. You may consult the Chief justice. This is answerable by yes or
no. Did the chief justice receive any letter or reminder from the UP Human Resource Development office or from any
UP official, including president Fred Pascual, reminding her or telling her that there are missing SALNs in the Human
Resource Developement office, and that she should update or file her SALNs?

Atty. Pablador:​ According to the Chief Justice, "Never," Your Honor.

CJ Carpio​: She did not receive any reminder or letter?

Atty. Poblador​: Yes.

CJ Carpio:​ Thank you. With that, we end the oral arguments. The parties shall submit their memo and all the
documents that the justices have requested from them within 10 days from today that means on or before april 20,
2018 thats a friday. No extension. And then the petition is deemed submitted for resolution after that.