RE: SHOW CAUSE ORDER IN THE DECISION DATED MAY 11, 2018 IN G.R. NO.

237428 (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY SOLICITOR

GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA V. MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO)

Facts:

This is stemmed after the conclusion of the quo warranto proceeding against Sereno which
questiond her eligibility for the position for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Sereno
continuously opted to defend herself in public through speaking engagements before students and
faculties, several public forms, interviews on national television and public rallies. The Court
asserted that these acts cast aspersions on the impartiality of the members of the Court, degrade
the faith of the people to the Judiciary, and falsely impute ill motives against the government that
is orchestrating the charges against her. Hence, the Court in its decision in the quo warranto case
order Sereno to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for violating the CPR and the New
Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary for transgressing the subjudice rule and for
casting aspersions and ill motives to the members of the court.

Issues:

May Sereno be held administratively liable for her actions and public statements as regards
the qou warranto case against her during its pendency?

Law Applicable:

Code of Professional Responsibility – Canon 13, Rule 13.03

New Code of Judicial Conduct – Canons 1 – 4

Case History:

An impeachment complaint was lodged before the Committee on Justice of the House of
Representatives against respondent for culpable violation of the Constitution, corruption, high
crimes, and betrayal of public trust. Having learned of respondent's disqualification as a Chief
Justice from the House Committee on Justice's hearings, the Republic of the Philippines
(Republic), through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a petition for quo warranto against
respondent, basically questioning her eligibility for the Chief Justice position.

Ruling:

The Court held in AFFIRMATIVE. Lawyers must conduct themselves with great
propriety, and their behavior must be beyond reproach anywhere and at all times. Lawyers may be
disciplined for acts admitted even in their private capacity for acts which tend to bring reproach
on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. Any errant behavior
on the part of a lawyer and/or judge, be it in their public or private activities, which tends to show
said lawyer or judge deficient in moral character, honestly, probity, or good demeanor is sufficient
to warrant suspension or disbarment.

Opinion:

I believe that the show cause order given to Sereno violated her freedom of speech. Speech
should be free so we can all discuss and comment on issues of public concern.