Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
En Banc, Manila

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Petitioner,
Administrative Case No.1234
- versus -

MA. LOURDES P.A. SERENO, For: Quo Warranto, Rule 66

Respondent.
x ----------------------------------- x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

RESPONDENT, through counsel, respectfully aver that –

Respondent received their copy of the Decision promulgated by this Honorable Court on
May 13, 2018 through personal service on May 13, 2018, which reads –

“WHEREFORE, the Petition for Quo Warranto is GRANTED. Respondent

Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno is found DISQUALIFIED from and is hereby adjudged
GUILTY of UNLAWFULLY HOLDING and EXERCISING the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF
JUSTICE.

Accordingly, Respondent Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno is OUSTED and

EXCLUDED therefrom.

The position of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is declared vacant
and the Judicial and Bar Council is directed to commence the application and
nomination process.

This Decision is immediately executory without need of further action from

the Court.

Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno is ordered to SHOW CAUSE

within ten (10) days from receipt hereof why she should not be sanctioned for violating
the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct for
transgressing the sub judice rule and for casting aspersions and ill motives to the
Members of the Supreme Court.

SO ORDERED.”

Availing of her rights under Section 1, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, respondent move for
the reconsideration of the Decision promulgated on May 13, 2018 based on the following:

1. The Honorable Court has no jurisdiction to nullify the appointment of respondent;

2. Even assuming arguendo that the Honorable Court has jurisdiction, the petition for
quo warranto is filed beyond the 1 year prescriptive period;
3. The time-barred quo warranto proceeding is a violation of respondent’s security of
tenure;
4. The Honorable Court erred in construing the word “may” under Section 2, Article XI of
the 1987 Constitution;
5. The quo warranto proceeding against respondent is a harassment suit, thus, violating
his human rights, as embodied in several international instruments.

The foregoing grounds are discussed as follows:

I. The Honorable Court has no jurisdiction to nullify the appointment of respondent.

Sec. 9, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that:

“SECTION 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be
appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar
Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.

Xxx”

The Judicial and Bar Council determines who among the applicants are qualified to be
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as it is the one which prepares the list of three nominees.
It also provided under the 1987 Constitution that the principal functions of the Judicial and Bar
Council shall include recommending appointees to the Judiciary. The Judicial and Bar Council in
determining those who are qualified is guided by the Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council. The
said rule provides for additional qualifications of a member of the Judiciary. One of which is
integrity, which is the issue at hand.
Integrity is a statutory qualification to the basic qualifications of a member of the Supreme Court
under the 1987 Constitution. Unlike the basic qualifications, which are expressly enumerated
under the Constitution, the qualification of integrity has no basis. It is a matter wherein it must be
determined by the authority vested with such power, in this case, the Judicial and Bar Council.

Before nominating three applicants, the Judicial and Bar Council determines who among
the applicants are qualified. When Respondent was nominated as Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, the Judicial and Bar council, therefore, has determined that she is qualified. It comes with it
that Respondent has the basic qualifications of being a Chief Justice as well as the statutory
qualifications such as integrity, competence, and independence

Having the power to determine who are qualified, it is fair to say that it is beyond the
power of the Supreme Court to nullify the appointment of Respondent on the ground of lack of
integrity. The question whether or not a member of the Supreme Court lacks integrity is a matter
determinable only by the judicial and bar council.

II. Even assuming arguendo that the Honorable Court has jurisdiction, the petition
for quo warranto is filed beyond the 1 year prescriptive period;

Rule 66 of the Rules of Court provides for Quo Warranto. Section 1 provides for the
actions that may be commenced in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against
individuals. Under the subparagraph (b), a quo warranto petition may be brought against a public
officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provision of law, constitutes a ground for the
forfeiture of his office. Former Chief Justice Respondent failed to file some of her SALNs which
dates back to 1985. The submission of a SALN is required by law under Article XI Section 17 of
the 1987 Constitution and Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713, the “Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees.” Hence the quo warranto petition initiated by
Solicitor General against Respondent.

Section 11 of Rule 66 provides for the limitations for filing Quo Warranto petitions. It
states, “Nothing contained in this Rule shall be construed to authorize an action against a public
officer or employee for his ouster from office unless the same be commenced within one (1) year
after the cause of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position, arose,
nor to authorize an action for damages in accordance with the provisions of the next preceding
section unless the same be commenced within one (1) year after the entry of the judgment
establishing the petitioner's right to the office in question.” The recent year wherein there was the
non-filing of Respondent’s SALN, which is the cause of ouster, was 2009. Petitioner’s quo
warranto petition was filed nine years thereafter. Hence, the limitation can be availed of.

III. The time-barred quo warranto proceeding is a violation of respondent’s security

of tenure;

The granting of quo warranto is a violation of her security of tenure provided under the
Article XI of the 1987 Constitution of Public Officers. This decision sets a dangerous precedent
which threatens the right of public officials to security of tenure. It may even cause for the
disregard of the constitutional principle of separation of powers between the branches of the
government as quo warranto or fear of being the subject thereof may be used by a certain branch
to encroach upon the sphere of another branch.

Security of tenure is a constitutional or legal guarantee that a political office-holder cannot

be removed from office except in specified or exceptional circumstances. Without this right, an
office-holder may be restricted from carrying his or her functions in fear of easy removal from
office by whomever in disapproval of their decisions. Security of Tenure offers protection, by
ensuring that an office-holder cannot be victimized for exercising their powers, functions, and
duties.
It is a protected right of public officials under Article XI of our Constitution. When public
officials are appointed in a rank or position in a permanent nature or that which may be removed
only through impeachment, the official obtains his or her right to security of tenure upon the lapse
of 1 year from appointment or assumption of office. But before this right arises, the appointment
must be a valid one, wherein the appointee must possess the qualifications and eligibilities for the
position. Maria Lourdes Respondent was thoroughly screened together with other applicants by
the Judicial and Bar Council. She was even included in the final list of candidates, a proof of her
qualifications and eligibility to the position.

The right to security of tenure is also safeguarded by international declarations and

treaties: under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Article 25 of the UDHR states that
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself
and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services,
and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or
other lack of livelihood...."; while Article 11 of ICESCR provides "The States Parties ... recognize
the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including
adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions....".
The right to security of tenure is essentially, part of the right to life. It is important to provide a
person a decent and standard way of life. The right to security of tenure in general includes a
person’s right to livelihood, or a person’s right to be secured of office. The pronouncement
granting the quo warranto petition opens a perilous path for the violation of this fundamental
human right as every appointee in public office, from the lowest to even the highest ranking
government officials, may be subjected to quo warranto to deprive them of their office, and
collaterally, their livelihood.

The right of security of tenure must always be protected and observed, as it is provided
for by our Constitution. Even in the absence thereof, our State has the duty under international
law to abide by treaties to which the Philippines is a state party and generally accepted principles
of international law as part of the law of the land by virtue of Article II, Sec 2 of our Constitution.

IV. The Honorable Court erred in construing the word “may” under Section 2, Article
XI of the 1987 Constitution;

Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution states:

“Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the
Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on
impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft
and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees
may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.”

This provision provides for the manner of removing public officers from office. Relating the second
sentence from the first one, there has been a qualifier or distinction not with the ranks or positions of public
officers in the government but with the manner on how they shall be removed from office. The first sentence
provides for the removal by impeachment whereas the second sentence provides for the removal as
provided by law. Expressum facit cessare tacitum. What is expressed makes what is implied silent. Thus, as
then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, it is by impeachment which should have been the proper recourse
to remove her from office.

The Honorable Court construed the word “may” to mean that the President, the Vice-
President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the
Ombudsman may be removed from office through other legal means, such as in the instant case, a
quo warranto proceeding. However, the “may” refers to the permission or possibility to impeach
them should they commit and be convicted of “ culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery,
graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.” It is not automatic that when said officials
commit the foregoing acts they would undergo impeachment proceedings. There is a possibility that the
Congress may choose to have blind eyes and deaf ears, as it members usually have, and decide not to
commence impeachment proceedings against the erring officer. In such a case, impeachment proceedings
may not be conducted. Indeed, such is the true meaning of the permissive word “may.”

V. The quo warranto proceeding against respondent is a harassment suit, thus,

violating his human rights, as embodied in several international instruments.

Human dignity is a sense of self-worth. It is a sense of pride in oneself that a human

being has with them. This conscious sense makes them feel that they deserve respect and
honour from other human beings.

Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides:

“1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family,
home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

The abovementioned provisions taken from the ICCPR are not merely principles relating
to the positive act of the right to be respected. It comes with the negative act of the right against
assault on one’s honour. Any act that incidentally steps on the person’s dignity as a human being
becomes intolerable in the eyes of the said provisions.

The Decision on Respondent’s ouster started with a discussion of how integrity plays an
essential tool in administering and dispensing justice. It then reiterated that one cannot be a
qualified member of the Judiciary in the absence of the mandatory requirement of “proven
integrity.” The facts from both sides were presented categorically, the issues classified
emphatically, and the ruling insistently. But over the course of the 213 page document in justifying
Respondent’s ouster, she was labelled as an “imposter.” Instead of highlighting the reasonable
grounds that justify her alleged disqualification, the decision emphasized the absence of the
qualifications that should supposedly be present in her character. It stressed on “what she is not,”
rather than delving on “what and how she is as an appointed Chief Justice.”

The judgment, thus, necessarily implies that Respondent is one without proven integrity
and should not be allowed to have a seat in the Judiciary. But that is one issue. What is another
issue is the unendurable manner on how the highest court of the country disrespected her on
procedural and substantial grounds by phrasings which do not reflect a body that should be
dispensing justice. If a human being is in a humiliating or compromising situation as in this case,
then there is a major threat to their dignity and rights that should be protected by the principles of
international law in case the domestic law refuses or fails to do so. Therefore, if we will allow the
Court to use such words against a person who has “unproven integrity,” we will be allowing the
authorities in charged with the execution of the law to unjustifiably brand everyone, to say the
least, with harsh labels that make us dishonourable and lose our self-respect.

This case reflects that the scales of justice has been tilted by the very pillars that stand
aground to maintain its balance.

Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that:

“Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions
mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen
representatives; xxx”

The abovementioned rule provides with the right of the individuals to participate in those
processes which constitute the conduct of public affairs. By ousting Chief Justice Respondent
through the petition for quo warranto before the Supreme Court, the Senate was deprived of their
right to take cognizance of the proceeding against the petitioner.

Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution expressly provides that “the President, the
Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional
Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and
conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other
high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed
from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.” As expressly provided under the 1987
Constitution, the Chief Justice through impeachment before the Senate is the only way to remove
the petitioner from her office.

However, the citizens were deprived of the rights granted under Article 25 of the ICCPR
as the court took rule over the case against the petitioner in a quo warranto proceeding when it
should have dismissed it outright as the proper recourse is vested within the jurisdiction of the
Senate. Clearly, by this procedural error, the right of the people to participate in the conduct of
public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives, has been violated. The Senate
was unduly restricted to perform the duty vested to them under the Constitution.

The Senate should have taken cognizance of the proceeding. In this regard, the people's
right to take part in the conduct of public affairs might have been protected. But because the
Supreme Court granted the quo warrant filed by the Office of the Solicitor General not only did the
Court violate the Constitution by proceeding with an improper remedy but the citizen's right in the
conduct of public affairs has been patently disregarded.

Senate being the chosen representatives of the people should have been given the
opportunity to exercise the mandate given to them under the Constitution. It is not a just right but
a mandate of their office vested in them by the fundamental law.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully prays for the reconsideration of the Honorable

Court’s May 13, 2018 Decision by reversing said Decision, declaring respondent eligible to hold
the Office of the Chief Justice, and reinstating her in said office.

Other reliefs as are just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

MANILA; May 25, 2018

[SIGNATURE]
Alexander Poblador
Counsel for Respondent
Poblador Bautista and Reyes Law Offices, 5th Floor, SEDCCO I Building, 120 Thailand Street,
corner Legaspi Street, Legaspi Village, Makati, 1229 Metro Manila
IBP Lifetime No. 1234; Manila
PTR No. 1234; January 1, 1980], Manila
Roll of Attorney No. 1234
MCLE Compliance No. 1234
 REQUEST FOR & NOTICE OF HEARING

THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR

SUPREME COURT
EN BANC, MANILA

Please submit the foregoing Motion to the Court for its consideration and approval
immediately upon receipt hereof and kindly include the same in the court’s calendar for hearing
on Friday, June 1, 2018 at 8:30 in the morning.

Atty. Alexander Poblador

Poblador Bautista and Reyes Law Offices, 5th Floor, SEDCCO I Building, 120 Thailand Street,
corner Legaspi Street, Legaspi Village, Makati, 1229 Metro Manila

Please take notice that counsel has requested to be heard on Friday, [DATE] at [TIME] in
the [MORNING/AFTERNOON].

[SIGNATURE]
Alexander Poblador
Counsel for Respondent
[Poblador Bautista and Reyes Law Offices, 5th Floor, SEDCCO I Building, 120 Thailand Street,
corner Legaspi Street, Legaspi Village, Makati, 1229 Metro Manila
IBP Lifetime No. 1234; Manila
PTR No. 1234; January 1, 1980, Manila
Roll of Attorney No. 1234
MCLE Compliance No. 1234

Copy furnished through personal service:

Office of the Solicitor General

Counsel for the Petitioner
Office of the Solicitor General
134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village, Makati, Metro Manila

Republic of the Philippines )

City of Manila ) s.s.

AFFIDAVIT

I, Maria A. Lopez, a messenger of Atty. Alexander Poblador, with office address at

Poblador Bautista and Reyes Law Offices, 5th Floor, SEDCCO I Building, 120 Thailand Street,
corner Legaspi Street, Legaspi Village, Makati, 1229 Metro Manila, after being duly sworn,
deposes and states:

That on May 26, 2018, I served a copy of the following pleadings/papers by registered
mail in accordance with Section 10, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court:

Nature of Pleading/Paper
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

in Case No. 237428 entitled “Republic vs. Sereno” by depositing a copy in the post office in a
sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the Office of the Solicitor General at 134 Amorsolo Street,
Legazpi Village, Makati, Metro Manila with postage fully paid, as evidenced by Registry Receipt
No. 1234 attached and with instructions to the post master to return the mail to sender after ten
(10) days if undelivered.

TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have signed this Affidavit on May 25, 2018, in
Manila, Philippines.

[SIGNATURE]
Maria A. Lopez
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me in the City of Manila on this day of May
2018, affiant exhibiting before me his Government Issued ID no. 1234 issued on January 5, 2010
at Manila, Philippines

[SIGNATURE]
JUAN P. REYES
Notary Public
 Until January 1, 2019
PTR No. 1234
Issued at Manila
May 25, 2018

Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2018.