FLORENCIO, Mayoree Rozene F.

JD103
FERDINAND E. MARCOS, et al., petitioners, vs.
HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS, et al., respondents.
G.R. No. 88211 September 15, 1989
CORTES, J.

FACTS:
During the Marcos regime, there were gross demotion
in economic, political, and social rank in the Philippines.
The military establishment has brought threats over the
civilian supremacy and spiteful military terrorize the state
with life-threatening brutality. The use of propaganda also
destabilized the country. Furthermore, Mr. Marcos and his
associates left the economy of the country devastated.
They positioned the Philippines with enormous foreign
debt the reason of which was Marcos’ plunder disposition.
On February 1986, Mr. Marcos was overthrown from the
presidency through the non-violent "people power"
revolution and forced the 20-yearlong regime in exile.
While Philippines is recovering from the economic
devastation, Mrs. Aquino, the succeeding President,
exhausted its effort to alleviate the poverty of the masses
within three years, whereas the ill-gotten wealth of the
Marcoses has remaind obscure.
Mr. Marcos then, in his deathbed, has signified his
wish to return to the Philippines to die. With the willpower
of the President, Mrs. Aquino vindicated that such return
of the Marcoses and residence thereafter, will endanger
the national security and public safety, thus the President
decides to bar their return to the Philippines.

ISSUES:
1.) Whether or not there exist factual bases for the
President to bar the return of the Marcoses to the
Philippines concerns the national interest?

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/39300809_206496858…&oh=ba19dfeb2f1532e4a110feecd4a87f0f&oe=5B7804B8&dl=1 16/08/2018, 12F06 PM

Page 1 of 6
 2.) Whether or not the President, under the powers
granted by the Constitution, may forbid the Marcoses from
returning to the Philippines?
3.) Whether or not the decision if the President of
forbidding the Marcoses to return in the country was
caused by acting arbitrarily or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction?

RULING:
The resolution of the problem is made difficult
because the persons who seek to return to the country are
the deposed dictator and his family whose command has
brought havoc to the country, which proves that there exist
factual bases for the President's decision.
​The Petitioners assert: "The President has
enumerated powers, and what is not enumerated is
impliedly denied to her.” However, it is known to the public
that the the powers of the President cannot be said to be
limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the
Constitution, unless his/her actions speak otherwise to
what the Constitution is upholding.
Moreover, the decision of the President was not
considered to be arbitrary or with grave abuse of
discretion primarily because of the President’s desire of
maintaining peace and order in the country and public
interest. However, the respondents solicit the President’s
sense of compassion to allow a man to come home to die
in his country. Nevertheless, the instant petition in
prohibiting the Marcoses to return to the Philippines due to
a serious threat to national interest and welfare was
dismissed.

FLORENCIO, Mayoree Rozene F.

JD103

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by,

SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA, petitioner, vs.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO, respondent.
G.R. No. 237428 May 18, 2018

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/39300809_206496858…&oh=ba19dfeb2f1532e4a110feecd4a87f0f&oe=5B7804B8&dl=1 16/08/2018, 12F06 PM

Page 2 of 6
 TIJAM, J.

FACTS:

Mrs. Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno was a faculty professor in

University of the Philippines College of Law since
November 1986 to June 1, 2006. She was on leave on
dates wherein she is also a legal counsel in two
international arbitrations. However, the UP-Human
Resource Department Office states that there was no
record of any permission that Mrs. Sereno will engage in
limited practice of profession. The respondent was
employed in UP Law from the dates mentioned above, but
her SALNS was filed only during the years of 1985, 1990,
1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2002. Having been
known her profession and career service, Mrs. Sereno
then, applied for the position of Associate Justice of
Supreme Court in July 2010. In support if the application,
the respondent submitted her SALNS for year 2006, but
there was no stamp received by the UP HRDO and was
signed only on July 27, 2010. After a month, the
respondent was appointed by the former President Aquino
III as Associate Justice and later took an oath. On the year
2012, the JBC announced that the position of the Chief
Justice is vacant and released the requirements for the
qualification of the position.
The respondent submitted her SALNS for the years 2009,
2010, and 2011, a waiver of confidentiality of her local and
foreign banks as her application for the position. Despite
having some incomplete requirements, the JBC came up
with a long list of candidates, including the respondent.
Afterwards, the JBC release a short-listed nominee that
would be transmitted to the President for appointment. Out
of the nominees, Mrs. Sereno was appointed as the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court. Five years later, on August
30, 2017, Atty. Gadon filed an impeachment compliant
against the respondent under the grounds of culpable
violation of the Constitution, high crimes, and betrayal of
public trust—wherein she failed to make truthful
declarations in her SALNS. The decision of this Court was

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/39300809_206496858…&oh=ba19dfeb2f1532e4a110feecd4a87f0f&oe=5B7804B8&dl=1 16/08/2018, 12F06 PM

Page 3 of 6
 found to be sufficient in form and substance.
During the hearings, the respondent avers that the reason of the inconsistency with her SALNS
is because her records were 15-year-old files which were infeasible to retrieve. The Republic
then, claims that the action for quo warranto is proper remedy to question the validity of the
respondent’s appointment. The Republic also seeks to oust the respondent from her position as
Chief Justice claiming she failed to show that she is a person of “proven integrity” which is a
requirement of a Chief Justice under the Constitution.

ISSUES:

1.) Whether or not the court can assume jurisdiction to the instant petition for quo warranto
2.) Whether or not Sereno, an impeachable officer, can be a respondent in a quo warranto
proceedings, even if the only way to remove an impeachable officer is by impeachment
3.) Whether or not the eligibility of a candidate is an exclusive function of the JBC
4.) Whether or not Sereno failed to comply with the requirement of submitting SALNS, given by
the JBC under the position of the Chief Justice
5.) Whether or not the nomination and appointment of the respondent is protected from the
ineligibility

RULING:

Quo warranto is a legal action that questions the

validity of an appointee to the office; an act performed
before the appointment. On the other hand, impeachment
is a complaint accuses someone from committing culpable
violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust; an
act after the appointment of the candidate. Stated in the
Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution that impeachable
officer may be removed from office by impeachment.
However, quo warranto petition is allowed against
impeachable officials and SC has jurisdiction. The
Republic reiterates that such concealment of her records
[SALNS] is a clear manifestation of lack of integrity,
probity, and honesty. Before one can hold public office,
he/she must be eligible and a person with “proven
integrity” in accordance with the qualifications fixed by law.
According to Section 8(1), Article VII of the
Constitution, “A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created
under the supervision of the Supreme Court.” meaning
they oversee if the office is performing its duties. The
exercise of discretion of nominees by the JBC is neither
supreme nor unlimited, thus the nomination is not
exclusively a function of the JBC and the Court is also
allowed to question such circumstance from resolving.

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/39300809_206496858…&oh=ba19dfeb2f1532e4a110feecd4a87f0f&oe=5B7804B8&dl=1 16/08/2018, 12F06 PM

Page 4 of 6
 The Republic The respondent has a legal obligation to
disclose the JBC about her failed SALNS, but she did not
make the office aware of such discrepancy, instead of
complying with the requirements, she submitted a letter
justifying why she should no longer be required to file the
SALNs.
The Republic states that the passage of time, even
after five years after the respondent’s appointment, will not
cure such invalidity of holding public office. The Republic,
together with the Solicit General, issued the writ of quo
warranto to declare as void the Chief Justice appointment
of Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno and to oust and exclude
therefrom.

FLORENCIO, Mayoree Rozene F.

JD103

EXERCISE:

Ms. Katrina Grace D. Valera, a 22-year-old female, has been living her life exceptionally. Being
part of the community with difficulties, Katrina believes that disability is a matter of perception—

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/39300809_206496858…&oh=ba19dfeb2f1532e4a110feecd4a87f0f&oe=5B7804B8&dl=1 16/08/2018, 12F06 PM

Page 5 of 6
 that with the right amount of courage and perseverance, we will eventually know that there is a
place for everyone—and hers is here, in law school.

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/39300809_206496858…&oh=ba19dfeb2f1532e4a110feecd4a87f0f&oe=5B7804B8&dl=1 16/08/2018, 12F06 PM

Page 6 of 6