Sunteți pe pagina 1din 3

5. Republic v.

Sereno complied, failure to do so resulting in the exclusion from the list of candidates to be
[G.R. No. 237428. May 11, 2018.] interviewed and considered for nomination.
By: EAY III 12. Pursuant to this, the OSRN required Respondent to submit her SALNs for the years
Topic: QUO WARRANTO 1995-1999, the period within which she was employed by UP.
Petitioner: REPUBLIC of the PHILIPPINES, represented by SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA 13. Respondent replied through a letter that considering that such government records
Respondent: MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO, in UP are more than 15 years old, “it is reasonable to consider it infeasible to retrieve
Ponente: TIJAM, J. all those files.”
14. She also assured OSRN that UP has cleared her of all responsibilities, accountabilities,
FACTS: and administrative charges in 2006. Lastly, she emphasized that her service in the
1. The Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida, filed government was not continuous, having had a break between 2006 (when her
a Petition for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of quo warranto to declare void service in UP ended) and 2010 (when she was appointed to the SC).
Respondent Sereno’s appointment as Chief Justice of the SC and to oust her. 15. Such letter was not examined or deliberated upon by the JBC. Neither can the JBC
2. Respondent served as a member of the faculty of the UP College of Law (UP) from Execom produce minutes of the deliberations to consider the issue of substantial
1986 to 2006. She also served as legal counsel for the Republic of the Philippines for compliance with documentary requirements.
several agencies from 1994 until 2009. On July 2010, Respondent submitted her 16. However, despite having submitted only three SALNs (2009-2011), the Report
application for the position of Associate Justice of the SC. regarding documentary requirements and SALNs of candidates shows that her name
3. Despite the span of 20 years of employment with UP from 1986 to 2006 and despite was annotated with “COMPLETE REQUIREMENTS”, noting her letter that it was
having been employed as legal counsel of various government agencies from 2003 infeasible to retrieve all files.
to 2009, records from the UP Human Resources Development Office, Central 17. The same annotation was found in another list regarding SALN submissions of 20
Records Division of the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Office of Recruitment candidates, including Respondent.
Selection and Nomination (ORSN) of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) show that the 18. Respondent was appointed by President Benigno Aquino III on 25 August 2012.
only Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) available on record and 19. Five years later, an impeachment complaint was filed by Atty. Larry Gadon with the
filed by Respondent were those for the years 1985, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, House Committee of Justice. Included in the complaint was the allegation that
1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2002, or only 11 out of 25 SALNs that ought to have Respondent failed to make a truthful statement of her SALNs. Such complaint filed
been filed. in the House spawned a letter dated 21 February 2018 of Atty. Eligio Mallari to the
4. No SALNs were filed from 2003 to 2006 when she was employed as legal counsel for OSG requesting the latter to initiate a quo warranto proceeding against Respondent.
the Republic. 20. Contentions of Petitioner:
5. Neither was a SALN filed when she resigned from U.P. College of Law as of 1 June a. The OSG (Petitioner) argues that quo warranto is an available remedy in
2006 and when she supposedly re-entered government service as of 16 August 2010. questioning the validity of Respondent’s appointment, and that the one-
6. Respondent was appointed Associate Justice in August 2010 by President Benigno year bar rule does not apply against the State. It also argues that the SC
Aquino III. has jurisdiction over the petition. The petition alleges that the failure of
7. When the position for Chief Justice was declared vacant in 2012, the JBC announced Respondent to submit her SALNs as required by the JBC disqualifies her, at
the opening for applications and nominations, requiring applicants to submit all the outset, from being a candidate for the position of Chief Justice. Lacking
previous SALNs up to 31 December 2011 (instead of the usual last two years of public the required number of SALNs, Respondent has not proven her integrity,
service) and stating that, “applicants with incomplete or out-of-date documentary which is a requirement under the Constitution. The Republic thus
requirements will not be interviewed or considered for nomination.” concludes that since Respondent is ineligible for the position of Chief
8. Respondent accepted several nominations for the position of Chief Justice, and Justice for lack of proven integrity, she has no right to hold office and may
submitted requirements in support thereof. therefore be ousted via quo warranto.
9. On 20 July 2012, the JBC in a special meeting en banc deliberated on nominees with 21. Contentions of Respondents:
incomplete documentary requirements. a. Respondent, on the other hand, argues that the Chief Justice may only be
10. The minutes of the deliberation show that Respondent has not submitted her SALNs ousted from office by impeachment on the basis of the Constitution and a
for a period of ten years, from 1986 to 2006, the duration for which, according to long line of jurisprudence. Alternatively, she argues that the present
Senator Escudero (ex officio member of the JBC), she was a professor in UP and was petition is time-barred, as it should have been filed within one year from
therefore required to submit SALNs. the cause of ouster, and not from the discovery of the disqualification.
11. Apart from Respondent, several other candidates had incomplete documents such b. It is likewise the contention of Respondent that public officers without pay
that the JBC En Banc agreed to extend the deadline for submission. It also delegated or those who do not receive compensation are not required to file a SALN.
to the Execom the determination of whether or not the candidate has substantially Thus, Respondent argues that for the years that she was on official leave
without pay, she was actually not required to file any SALN. She adds that
to require the submission of SALNs as an absolute requirement is to of Impeachment before the Senate. Thus, at the moment, there is no pending
expand the qualifications provided by the Constitution. impeachment case against the Respondent. The proceedings in the House are merely
c. Respondent urges the Court to apply in her favor the case of Concerned in the nature of a preliminary investigation whereby probable cause is sought to be
Taxpayer v. Doblada, Jr., and deem as sufficient and acceptable her determined.
statement that she “maintains that she consistently filed her SALNs.” 4. Impeachment is not an exclusive remedy by which an invalidly appointed or
Respondent argues that the Court’s rationale in Doblada that one cannot invalidly elected impeachable official may be removed from office. Even the
readily conclude failure to file SALNs simply because these documents are Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) Rules expressly provide for the remedy of either
missing in the Office of the Court Administrator's files should likewise be an election protest or a petition for quo warranto to question the eligibility of the
made applicable to her case. President and the Vice-President, both of whom are impeachable officers. In fact,
this would not be the first time the Court shall take cognizance of a quo warranto
ISSUE: W/N the Court can assume jurisdiction and give due course to the instant petition for petition against an impeachable officer (see cases of Estrada v. Desierto, et al. and
quo warranto against Respondent who is an impeachable officer and against whom an Estrada v. Macapagal- Arroyo where SC took cognizance of a quo warranto petition
impeachment complaint has already been filed with the House of Representatives - YES against former President Macapagal- Arroyo considering whether former President
Estrada’s act of resignation ended his official status as President).
RATIO: 5. Furthermore, the language of Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution does not
1. SC has original jurisdiction over an action for quo warranto. Section 5, Article VIII of foreclose a quo warranto action against impeachable officers: “[T]he Members of
the Constitution states that the SC has original jurisdiction over petitions for quo the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the
warranto. This jurisdiction is concurrent with the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Ombudsman may be removed from office ...” The provision uses the permissive
Regional Trial Court (RTC). Section 7, Rule 66 of Rules of Court provides that the term “may” which, in statutory construction, denotes discretion and cannot be
venue for an action for quo warranto is in the RTC of Manila, CA, or SC when construed as having a mandatory effect. An option to remove by impeachment
commenced by the Solicitor General. 
While the hierarchy of courts serves as a admits of an alternative mode of effecting the removal.
general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary 6. That the enumeration of “impeachable offenses” is made absolute such that only
writs, a direct invocation of the SC’s original jurisdiction in this case is justified those enumerated offenses are treated as grounds for impeachment does not mean
considering that the qualification of a Member of the Court is in question, and the that it is to be taken as a complete statement of the causes of removal from office.
issue is of public concern. 
The petition for quo warranto is of transcendental The word “may” cannot also be understood to qualify only the imposable penalties
importance. The instant petition is one of first impression and of paramount because it would lead to the conclusion that other lesser penalties may be imposed
importance to the public in the sense that the qualification, eligibility and — a situation not contemplated in the language of the Constitutional provision.
appointment of an incumbent Chief Justice, the highest official of the Judiciary, are 7. The courts should be able to inquire into the validity of appointments even of
being scrutinized through an action for quo warranto. 
 impeachable officers. To hold otherwise is to allow an absurd situation where the
2. On the argument that Respondent is an impeachable officer such that a quo appointment of an impeachable officer cannot be questioned, on the basis of
warranto petition cannot prosper, the Court held that the origin, nature and citizenship or membership in the Bar, for example. Unless such an officer commits
purpose of impeachment and quo warranto are materially different. While both any of the grounds for impeachment and is actually impeached, he can continue
impeachment and quo warranto may result in the ouster of the public 
official, the discharging the functions of his office even when he is clearly disqualified from
two proceedings materially differ. At its most basic, impeachment proceedings are holding it. Such would result in permitting unqualified and ineligible public officials
political in nature; while an action for quo warranto is judicial or a proceeding to continue occupying key positions, exercising sensitive sovereign functions until
traditionally lodged in the courts. they are successfully removed from office through impeachment.
3. Furthermore, there is no forum-shopping, as alleged by the Respondent, because 8. The Supreme Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction over a quo warranto petition is not
quo warranto and impeachment can proceed independently and simultaneously, violative of the doctrine of separation of powers. At the outset, an action for quo
as they differ as to (1) jurisdiction (2) grounds, (3) applicable rules pertaining to warranto does not try a person’s culpability of an impeachment offense, neither
initiation, filing and dismissal, and (4) limitations. The causes of action in the two does a writ of quo warranto conclusively pronounce such culpability.
proceedings are unequivocally different. In quo warranto, the cause of action lies on a. The Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction over quo warranto proceedings does
the usurping, intruding, or unlawfully holding or exercising of a public office, while in not preclude the House of Representatives from enforcing its own
impeachment, it is the commission of an impeachable offense. Likewise, the reliefs prerogative of determining probable cause for impeachment, to craft and
sought in the two proceedings are different. Respondent in a quo warranto transmit the Articles of Impeachment, nor will it preclude the Senate from
proceeding shall be ordered to cease holding a public office, which he/she is exercising its constitutionally committed power of impeachment.
ineligible to hold. On the other hand, in impeachment, a conviction shall result in the 9. In this case, it is incidental that the non-filing of SALNs also formed part of the
removal of the Respondent from the public office that he/she is legally holding. allegations in the Articles of Impeachment, which in itself is a Constitutional
Furthermore, the impeachment case is yet to be initiated by the filing of the Articles requirement, the violation of which constitutes culpable violation of the
Constitution. But unlike other impeachable officers, Respondent’s position also
demands compliance with the qualifications of having to be a person of proven
competence, integrity, probity, and independence — and the failure to submit SALNs
goes into the very qualification of integrity.
10. For the guidance of the bench and the bar, and to obviate confusion in the future as
to when quo warranto as a remedy to oust an ineligible public official may be availed
of, and in keeping with the Court’s function of harmonizing the laws and the rules
with the Constitution, the Court herein demarcates that an act or omission
committed prior to or at the time of appointment or election relating to an official’s
qualifications to hold office as to render such appointment or election invalid is
properly the subject of a quo warranto petition, provided that the requisites for the
commencement thereof are present. On the contrary, acts or omissions, even if it
relates to the qualification of integrity, being a continuing requirement but
nonetheless committed during the incumbency of a validly appointed and/or validly
elected official, cannot be the subject of a quo warranto proceeding, but of
something else, which may either be impeachment if the public official concerned is
impeachable and the act or omission constitutes an impeachable offense, or
disciplinary, administrative or criminal action, if otherwise.
11. The exercise of judicial restraint on the ground that the Senate, sitting as an
impeachment court, has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment,
is thus misplaced. An outright dismissal of the petition based on speculation that
Respondent will eventually be tried on impeachment is a clear abdication of the
Court’s duty to settle an actual controversy squarely presented before it. There is
also no possibility of a constitutional crisis upon which an abdication of such duty is
to be premised because, as discussed, it is within the Court’s judicial power to settle
justiciable issues or actual controversies involving rights, which are legally
demandable and enforceable. It is not arrogating upon itself the power to impeach,
which is a political exercise. 
Seeking affirmative relief from the Court is tantamount
to voluntary appearance. Respondent cannot now be heard to deny the Court’s
jurisdiction over her person even as she claims to be an impeachable official because
Respondent in fact invoked and sought affirmative relief from the Court by praying
for the inhibition of several Members of this Court and by moving that the case be
heard on Oral Arguments, albeit ad cautelam. (a) petitioners shall be paid only half
of the adjudged monthly rental of P2,500,000; and (b) the award of attorney's fees
is reduced to P75,000.

S-ar putea să vă placă și