Republic of the Philippines vs.

Sereno the applicants to submit documents, among which are “all previous
G.R. No. 237428 | May 11, 2018 | Tijam, J. | Quo Warranto SALNs up to December 31, 2011” for those in the government and
“SALN as of December 31, 2011” for those from the private sector.
The JBC announcement further provided that “applicants with
PETITIONER/S: Republic of the Philippines represented by Sol. Gen,
incomplete or out-of-date documentary requirements will not be
Jose C. Calida
interviewed or considered for nomination.”
RESPONDENT/S: Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno
6. Sereno expressed in a letter to JBC that since she resigned from UP
Law in 2006 and became a private practitioner, she was treated as
SUMMARY: Sereno issued a quo-warranto case, and refused to be
coming from the private sector and only submitted three (3) SALNs
involved in the hearings, and was actively telling the media on her case.
or her SALNs from the time she became an Associate Justice.
Despite this, in a report to the JBC, Sereno was said to have
MAIN ISSUE: Whether Sereno may be held administratively liable for
“complete requirements.”
her actions and public statements as regards the quo-warranto during its
7. In August 2012, Sereno was appointed Chief Justice. The OSG
pendency
claimed that Sereno is illegally holding her position as the Chief
Justice due to her failure to submit her SALNs, and consequently,
ANSWER: Yes
speaks of her failure to prove her integrity (a requirement to be
appointed as Chief Justice). Thus, the OSG argued that the quo
DOCTRINE: Sub judice and Separation of Powers, Quo Warranto
warranto is an available remedy because what is being sought is to
question the validity of her appointment, and not to remove her from
a validly appointed position.
KEY WORDS: Media, Quo Warranto
In response, Sereno contended that an impeachable officer may only
FACTS: be ousted through impeachment.
1. Since the filing of the impeachment complaint amidst the
quo-warranto case, and even after the conclusion of its proceedings,
the Supreme Court noted that Sereno continuously opted to defend ISSUE/S:
herself in public through speaking engagements before students and 1. Whether the Court can assume jurisdiction and give due course
faculty in different universities, several public forums, interviews on to the instant petition for quo warranto against respondent who is
national television, and public rallies. an impeachable officer and against whom an impeachment complaint
2. Sereno refused initially to participate in the congressional hearings has already been filed with the HOR;
for the impeachment complaint, and when the petition for 2. Whether the petition is outrightly dismissible on the ground of
quo-warranto was filed, respondent continuously refused as well to prescription;
recognize the jurisdiction of the Court. 3. Whether the respondent is eligible for the position of Chief Justice:
3. Instead of being involved in the judicial process and answering the a. Whether the determination of a candidate’s eligibility for
charges against her to help resolve the matter, the respondent opted nomination is the sole and exclusive function of the JBC and
to proceed to a nationwide campaign vilifying members of the whether such determination, partakes of the character of a
Congress and the Judiciary. political question outside the Court’s supervisory and review
4. Despite her employment at the UP College of Law, records show that powers;
UP only contains the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net b. Whether respondent failed to file her SALNs as mandated by
Worth (SALN) for 9 out of the 20 years required of the respondent. the Constitution and required by the law and its
5. In 2010, Sereno was appointed as Associate Justice. On 2012, the implementing rules and regulations; and if so, whether the
position of Chief Justice was declared vacant, and the JBC directed
 failure to file SALNs voids the nomination and appointment i. Impeachment is a proceeding exercised by the
of respondent as Chief Justice; legislative, as representatives of the sovereign, to
c. Whether respondent failed to comply with the submission of vindicate the breach of trust reposed by the people in
SALNs as required by the JBC; and if so, whether the failure
the hands of the public officer by determining the
to submit SALNs to the JBC voids the nomination and
appointment of respondent as Chief Justice; public officer’s fitness to stay in office.
d. In case of a finding that a respondent is ineligible to hold the ii. An action for quo warranto, involves a judicial
position of Chief Justice, whether the subsequent nomination determination of the eligibility or validity of the
by the JBC and the appointment by the President cured such election or appointment of a public official based on
ineligibility. rules that are predetermined.
4. Whether respondent is a de jure or de facto officer ○ Quo warranto and impeachment can proceed independently
and simultaneously
Short Answer: Sereno is administratively liable for her actions and public
statements as regards the quo-warranto proceeding for violations of the Code ○ Impeachment is not an exclusive remedy by which an
of Professional Responsibility and New Code of Judicial Conduct for the invalidly appointed or invalidly elected impeachable official
Philippine Judiciary. She was only given the penalty of reprimand, may be removed from office
considering that she was just removed and disqualified as Chief Justice, and ○ The SC’s exercise of its jurisdiction over a quo warranto
the Court did not want to simply disregard her length of service in the petition is not violative of the doctrine of separation of
government either. powers
Whoever walks in integrity and with moral character walks securely but a he ○ Judicial power versus Judicial restraint and fear of a
who he who chooses a crooked path will be discovered and punished constitutional crisis
○ Seeking affirmative relief from the Court is tantamount to
RATIO/RULING: voluntary appearance
1. The Court has Jurisdiction over the instant Petition for Quo 2. The petition is not dismissible on the ground of prescription
Warranto since ○ Prescription does not lie against the State
○ Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over an action for ○ Circumstances obtaining in this case preclude the application
quo warranto of the prescriptive period
i. Section 5, Article VIII of Constitution says that SC 3. Respondent is ineligible as a candidate and nominee for the position
shall exercise original jurisdiction over petitions for of Chief Justice
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and a. Court Exercises Supervisory Authority over JBC
habeas corpus. i. The Court’s supervisory authority over the JBC
○ The instant petition is a case of transcendental importance includes ensuring that JBC complies with its own
i. The petition is one of first impression and is of rules
paramount importance to the public that the ii. Qualifications under the Constitution cannot be
incumbent Chief Justice, the highest official of the waived or bargained away by the JBC
judiciary, is being scrutinized through petition for b. Compliance with the Constitutional and statutory
quo warranto. requirement of filing of SALN intimately related to a
○ The origin, nature and purpose of impeachment and quo person’s integrity
warranto are materially different
 i. The filing of SALN is a Constitutional and statutory f. Respondent is a de facto officer removable through quo
requirement warranto.
ii. Integrity in question 4. The willful non-filling of a SALN is an indication of dishonesty, lack
■ SALN laws reflect the (1) act of filing of her of probity and lack of integrity. Moreso if the non-filing is repeated
assets, liabilities, and net worth and her in complete disregard of the mandatory requirements of the
family’s and (2) filing of a true, genuine, and Constitution and the law. Blatant Disregard and Open Defiance to
accurate SALN, being special laws that the Sub Judice Rule.
punish offenses, are malum prohibitum. ○ The rationale for the subjudice rule is for the courts, in the
■ The omission or commission of that act as decision of issues of fact and law, to be immune from every
defined by the law, and not the character extraneous influence; for the case to be decided upon
thereof, that determines w/n the provision evidence produced in court; and for the determination of
has been violated. such facts be uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies.
iii. Respondent chronically failed to file her SALNs and i. Code of Professional Responsibility
thus violated the law and the Code of Judicial Canon 13 Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not
Conduct. A member of the Judiciary who commits make public statements in the media
such violations cannot be deemed to be a person of regarding a pending case tending to arouse
proven integrity. public opinion for or against a party
iv. Respondent failed to properly and promptly file her ii. New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
SALNs, again in violation of the Constitutional and Judiciary
statutory requirements. Canons: Independence, Integrity,
c. Respondent failed to submit the required SALNs as to Impartiality, Propriety
qualify for nomination pursuant to the JBC rules iii. Legal basis on contempt:
i. The JBC required the submission of at least ten Rule 71 Rules of Court Sec 3.: Indirect
SALNs from those applicants who are incumbent contempt to be punished after charge and
Associate Justices, absent which, the applicant ought hearing……any of the following acts may
not to have been interviewed, much less been be punished for indirect contempt:
considered for nomination. (d) any improper conduct
ii. Respondent’s failure to submit to the JBC her tending, directly or indirectly, to
SALNs for several years means that her integrity impede, obstruct, or degrade the
was not established at the time of her application. administration of justice
d. Respondent’s disposition to commit deliberate acts and
omissions demonstrating dishonesty and lack of DEFINITION OF TERMS:
forthrightness is discordant with any claim of integrity. 1. Sub Judice - matters that are under judicial consideration, restricting
comments and disclosures pertaining to pending judicial
e. Respondent’s ineligibility for lack of proven integrity cannot
proceedings. Restriction applies to litigants and witnesses, the public
be cured by her nomination and subsequent appointment as in general, and most especially to members of the Bar and the Bench.
Chief Justice. 2. Quo-Warranto - legal procedure used to challenge an individual’s
right to authority over the position he or she holds.