The Republic, thru OSG, claims that an action for 

quo warranto is the proper remedy to question the

validity of respondent's appointment. It alleges that the instant petition is seasonably filed within the one-
year reglementary period under Section 11, Rule 66, 63 of the Rules of Court since respondent's
transgressions only came to light during the proceedings of the House Committee on Justice on the
allegations of the impeachment complaint filed against her. Alternatively, the Republic claims that it has
an imprescriptible right to bring quo warranto petition under the maxim nullum tempus occurit regi. (No
time runs agains the king (the gov.))

In justifying resort to petition for quo warranto, the Republic argues that quo warranto is available as
remedy even as against impeachable officers, like respondent Sereno. That the petition for quo
warranto is different from the impeachment proceedings because the writ of quo warranto is being sought
to question the validity of her appointment, while the impeachment complaint accuses her of committing
culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust while in office. 64 Citing the 2010 Rules of
the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) and the cases of Funa v. Chairman Villar65 and Nacionalista
Party v. De Vera,66

The Republic seeks to oust respondent from her position as Chief Justice on the ground that the latter
failed to show that she is person of proven integrity which is an indispensable qualification for
membership in the Judiciary under Section 7(3),67 Article VIII of the Constitution. Respondent failed to
fulfill the JBC requirement of filing the complete SALNs, thus her integrity remains unproven.

Issue – Whether impeachment is the only way to remove from office an impeachable officer. The OSG is
correct.

Ruling

No. Apart from impeachment where the ground of removal is for the betrayal of public trust. Another
remedy could also be filed a quo warranto proceeding- which is a remedy against the eligibility or
qualification of the public officer, it matters not as to any pre-existing charges. As quo warranto is the
proper remedy to remove respondent for failure to comply with the necessary integrity required for Chief
Justice who is required a greater demand of moral righteousness and uprightness, Justices, and judges
therefore are required to strictly abide to the law. In this case Sereno failing to file all of her SALNs, is in
violation of the law and judicial conduct.

Impeachment is not an exclusive remedy by which an invalidly appointed or invalidly elected

impeachable official may be removed from office

Respondent avers that she can be removed from office only by impeachment relying on the Court's ruling
in Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan,156Cuenco v. Fernan,157 In Re Gonzales,158Jarque v.
Desierto159 and Marcoleta v. Borra.160 

It should be stressed, however, that none of these cases concerned the validity of an impeachable
officer's appointment. Lecaroz involved criminal charge against mayor before the Sandiganbayan, while
the rest were disbarment cases filed against impeachable officers principally for acts done during their
tenure in public office.

Whether the impeachable officer unlawfully held his office or whether his appointment was void was not
an issue raised before the Court. The principle laid down in said cases is to the effect that during their
incumbency, impeachable officers cannot be criminally prosecuted for an offense that carries with it the
penalty of removal, and if they are required to be members of the Philippine Bar to qualify for their
positions, they cannot be charged with disbarment. The proscription does not extend to actions
assailing the public officer's title or right to the office he or she occupies.  

Even the PET Rules expressly provide for the remedy of either an election protest or petition for quo
warranto to question the eligibility of the President and the Vice-President, both of whom are
impeachable officers. To sustain respondent's position is to render election protests under the PET Rules
nugatory. The Constitution could not have intended such absurdity since fraud and irregularities in
elections cannot be countenanced, and the will of the people as reflected in their votes must be
determined and respected. The Court could not, therefore, have unwittingly curtailed its own judicial
power by prohibiting quo warranto proceedings against impeachable officers.

The origin, nature and purpose of impeachment and quo warranto are materially different

While both impeachment and quo warranto may result in the ouster of the public official, the two
proceedings materially differ. At its most basic, impeachment proceedings are political in nature, while an
action for quo warranto is judicial or proceeding traditionally lodged in the courts.

The court contrasted impeachment from quo warranto proceedings.

Impeachment

The modem form, however, appears to be inspired by the British parliamentary system of impeachment.
Though both public and private officials can be the subject of the process, the British system of
impeachment is largely similar to the current procedure in that it is undertaken in both Houses of the
Parliament. The House of Commons determines when an impeachment should be instituted. If the
grounds, normally for treason and other high crimes and misdemeanor, are deemed sufficient, the House
of Commons prosecutes the individual before the House of Lords. 119

While impeachment was availed for "high crimes and misdemeanors", it would appear that the
phrase was applied to variety of acts which can arguably amount to breach of the public's confidence,
such as advising the King to grant liberties and privileges to certain persons to the hindrance of the due
execution of the laws, procuring offices for persons who were unfit, and unworthy of them and
squandering away the public treasure, browbeating witnesses and commenting on their credibility, cursing
and drinking to excess, thereby bringing the highest scandal on the public justice of the kingdom, and
failure to conduct himself on the most distinguished principles of good faith, equity, moderation, and
mildness.120

While heavily influenced by the British concept of impeachment, the United States of America made
significant modifications from its British counterpart. Fundamentally, the framers of the United States
visualized the process as means to hold accountable its public officials, as can be gleaned from their
basic law:

The President, Vice-President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on
Impeachment for, and Conviction of, treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors. 121

Other noted differences from the British process of impeachment include limiting and specifying the
grounds to "treason, Bribery, or other High Criines and Misdemeanors", and punishing the offender with
removal and disqualification to hold public office instead of death, forfeiture of property and corruption of
blood.122

In the Philippines, the earliest record of impeachment in our laws is from the 1935
Constitution.123 Compared to the US Constitution, it would appear that the drafters of the 1935
Constitution further modified the process by making impeachment applicable only to the highest officials
of the country; providing "culpable violation of the Constitution" as an additional ground, and requiring
two-thirds vote of the House of Representatives to impeach and three-fourths vote of the Senate to
convict.

Our 1987 Constitution, also, provided another ground to impeach highranking public officials: "betrayal of
public trust". Commissioner Rustico De los Reyes of the 1986 Constitutional Commission explained this
ground as "catch-all phrase to include all acts which are not punishable by statutes as penal offenses but,
nonetheless, render the officer unfit to continue in office. It includes betrayal of public interest,
inexcusable negligence of duty, tyrannical abuse of power, breach of official duty by malfeasance or
misfeasance, cronyism, favoritism, etc. to the prejudice of public interest and which tend to bring the office
into disrepute."124

Quo warranto

The oft-cited origin of quo warranto was the reign of King Edward of England who questioned the local
barons and lords who held lands or title under questionable authority. After his return from his crusade in
Palestine, he discovered that England had fallen because of ineffective central administration by his
predecessor, King Henry III.126 The inevitable result was that the barons, whose relations with the King
were governed on paper by Magna Carta, assumed to themselves whatever power the King's officers had
neglected. Thus, King Edward deemed it wise to inquire as to what right the barons exercised any power
that deviated in the slightest from normal type of feudalism that the King had in mind. The theory is that
certain rights are regalia and can be exercised only upon showing of actual grants from the King or his
predecessor.

In the Philippines, the remedies against usurpers of public office appeared in the 1900s, through Act No.
190.127 Section 197 of the Act provides for provision comparable to Section 1, Rule 66 of the Rules of
Court:

Sec. 197. Usurpation of an Office or Franchise A civil action may be brought in the name of the
Government of the Philippine Islands:

1. Against person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises public civil office or
franchise within the Philippine Islands, or an office in corporation created by the authority of the
Government of the Philippine Islands;

2. Against public civil officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provisions of law, works
forfeiture of his office;

3. Against an association of persons who act as corporation within the Philippine Islands, without
being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act.

Based from the foregoing, it appears that impeachment is proceeding exercised by the legislative, as
representatives of the sovereign, to vindicate the breach of the trust reposed by the people in the hands
of the public officer by determining the public officer's fitness to stay in the office. Meanwhile, an action
for quo warranto, involves judicial determination of the eligibility or validity of the election or
appointment of public official based on predetermined rules.