Genobiagon, Nyl John Caesar A.

JD III
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics 07 May 2021

Administrative Jurisdiction Over Judges and Justices

1. Supreme Court
Sec.2, Art. XI 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 of the 1987 Constitution that the aforementioned public officials are
removed only from office by means of impeachment. This right to be removed only by
impeachment is the Constitution’s strongest guarantee of security of tenure. The effectively blocks
the use of other legal ways of ousting an officer.
In Re Gonzales (A.M. No. 88-4-5433 April 15, 1988) the Supreme Court said:
A public officer who under the Constitution is required to be a Member of the Philippine
Bar as a qualification for the office held by him and who may be removed from office only by
impeachment, cannot be charged with disbarment during the incumbency of such public officer.
Further, such public officer, during his incumbency, cannot be charged criminally before the
Sandiganbayan or any other court with any offense which carries with it the penalty of removal
from office, or any penalty service of which would amount to removal from office.
Justice Carpio in his dissenting opinion in Re: Castillo (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, February 8,
2011) emphasized that: The sole disciplining authority of all impeachable officer, including
Justices of this Court (Supreme Court), is Congress. Sec. 3(1), Art. XI of the Constitution provides
that, “The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of
impeachment.” Like wie, Sec. 3 (6) of the same Article provides that, “The Senate shall have the
sole power to try and decide cases of impeachment.” These provisions constitute Congress as the
exclusive authority to discipline all impeachable officers for any impeachable offense, including
“betrayal of public trust,” a “catchall phrase” to cover any misconduct involving breach of public
trust by an impeachable officer.
The impeachment proceedings begin with a complaint filed with the House of
Representatives either by a member of the House or by any citizen supported by a resolution of
endorsement by any member. The complaint is thereafter referred to the proper Committee which
prepares the report for the House. The report of the Committee can either be favorable or
unfavorable to the complaint. But whichever may be the tenor of the Committee report, the House
by a vote of one third of all its members decides whether the complaint should be given due course.
Referral to the Committee, however, and decision by the House need not be resorted to if the
complaint filed by at least one-third of all the members of the House. Either a favorable
recommendation of one-third of all the members of the House or a complaint filed by one-third of
all the members of the House sends the complaint to the Senate for trial. However, no impeachment
proceeding may be initiated against the same individual more than once within a period of one
year. This is intended to prevent impeachment from becoming an instrument of mere harassment.
Further, the Constitution prohibits the initiation of more than one impeachment proceeding
within one year.
 The Supreme Court in its resolution in the case of Republic of the Philippines VS Ma.
Lourdes Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, 19 June 2018 deposed, that the Quo Warranto proceedings
may also be used against an impeachable officer.

Quo Warranto VS Impeachment

A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine a person’s right or title
to a public office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment. It is the proper action to inquire into
a public officer’s eligibility or the validity of his appointment. Under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court,
a quo warranto proceeding involves a judicial determination of the right to the use or exercise of
the office. I.E. Quo Warranto grants the relief of ouster.
On the other hand, Impeachment is a political process undertaken by the legislature to
determine whether the public officer committed any of the impeachable offenses, namely, culpable
violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal
of public trust. It does not ascertain the officer’s eligibility for appointment or election, or
challenge the legality of his assumption of office. Conviction for any of the impeachable offenses
shall result in the removal from office. (Ibid.)

The Supreme Court’s quo warranto jurisdiction over impeachable officers also finds basis
in paragraph 7, Sec. 4, Article VII which designates it as the sole judge of the qualifications of the
President and Vice-President, both of whom are impeachable officers…however, for members of
the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Commissions does not mean that quo warranto cannot
extend to non-elected impeachable officers. The authority to hear quo warranto petitions against
appointive impeachable officers emanates from Sec. 5(1) of Art. VIII which grants quo warranto
jurisdiction to the Supreme Court without qualification as to the class of public officers over whom
the same may be exercised. (Ibid.)

2. All other Courts

Sec. 6, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution. The Supreme Court shall have administrative
supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.
Pursuant to this provision ONLY the Supreme Court can oversee compliance with the law
and the Rules of Court on the part of the Presiding Justice of the CA down to the lowest municipal
trial court judge and take the proper administrative action against them if any violation thereof,
requiring supervisory or administrative sanction.
Sec. 11, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution. The Supreme Court EN BANC shall have the
power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of majority of
the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
in thereon.
Thus, the Ombudsman has no power to entertain and investigate administrative complaints
against judges and court personnel. Complaints against judges and court personnel should
accordingly be filed with the Supreme Court [Maceda VS Vasquez, supra; Dolalas VS Office of
the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 118808 (1996)].
Administrative jurisdiction over a court employee belongs to the Supreme Court,
regardless of whether the offense was committed before or after employment in the judiciary.
Indeed, the standard procedure is for the CSC to bring its complaint against a judicial employee
before the Office of the Court Administrator [Ampong VS CSC, G.R. No. 167916 (2008)].
In order for the Court to acquire jurisdiction over an administrative case, the complaint
must be filed during the incumbency of the respondent. Once jurisdiction is acquired, it is not lost
by reason of respondent’s cessation from office [Re: Missing Exhibits and Court Properties in
Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Panabo City, Davao del Norte, AM 10-2-41-RTC (2013)].

3. Initiation of Complaint against Judges and Justices

Proceedings for the discipline of judges of regular and special courts and justices of the
Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted:
1. Motu Proprio by the Supreme Court;
2. Upon verified complaint, supported by affidavits of persons who have personal
knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said
allegations;
3. Upon anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable integrity.

The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and
omissions consulting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for judges, the Rules of Court,
or the Code of Judicial Responsibility [Sec. 1, Rule 140, Rules of Court].
The right to institute disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients nor is it necessary
that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. The procedural
requirement observed in ordinary civil proceedings that only the real party-in-interest must initiate
the suit does not apply in disbarment cases. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest
and the only basis for the judgment is proof or failure of proof of the charges [Figueros VS
Jimenez, A.C. No. 9116 (2014)].