Republic of the Philippines v.

Maria Lourdes Sereno (Respondent)

G.R. No. 237428, 11 May 2018
Ponente: Associate Justice Noel Tijam

Facts: The Republic, through the Solicitor General Jose Calida, filed a petition to
issue a writ of quo warranto to declare Maria Lourdes Sereno’s appointment as Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court void, and to remove her from said position. As a
background, respondent has served a span of 20 as a member of the faculty of the
University of the Philippines – College of Law from November 1986 to June 2009, but
she filed multiple official leaves from 2000 to 2006. Together with her teaching stint, she
also served as a legal counsel for the State (Republic), from 2003 to 2009 including two
international arbitrations. Prior to the case at bar, the UP Human Resources
Development Office, which handles the records of Sereno, reveals that the respondent
has only successfully filed 11 out of 25 of her Statements of Liabilities, and Net Worth -
from years 1985, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2002.
After her resignation from UP, she has renewed her government affiliation in August 16,
2010, as an appointed Associate Justice by then President Benigno Aquino III. In 2012,
the seat of Chief Justice was declared vacant by the Judicial Bar Council (JBC), and
Sereno has accepted numerous nominations for the said position, providing all the
requirements thereof. The JBC had a special meeting to deliberate on the shortlisted
nominees with incomplete requisites, including the respondent’s 10-year failure to
submit SALN to UP as a professor, which is a requirement in the said university. Sereno
was then asked to provide her SALNs from year 1995-1999, however, she argued that
the records were more than 15 years old and she deems it reasonable to consider
looking for it infeasible to retrieve said files. Instead, she assured the Office of
Recruitment, Selection and Nomination (ORSN), that U.P. has checked and cleared her
from all responsibilities, accountabilities and administrative charges in 2006. Evidently,
respondent only supplied three SALNs from 2009 to 2011, but JBC reports show her
name was annotated with the label “complete requirements.” Ultimately, she was
appointed by President Aquino from August 25 2012. Five years later, Attorney Larry
Gadon filed an impeachment complaints against her, and in February 21, 2018,
Attorney Eligio Mallari requested to initiate a quo warranto proceeding against said
respondent. Integrated Bar of the Philippines has requested to intervene with the case
while Sereno filed motions for inhibition of Justices Bersamin, Peralta, Jardeleza, Tijam
and Leonardo-de Castro) claiming actual bias for testifying before the House Committee
for Justice on the filed impeachment complaint.

ISSUES:
1.) Whether or Not the grant of the motions to intervene is proper.
2.) Whether the grant of the motions for inhibition against the Associate Justices on the
basis of actual bias is proper
3.) Whether or not the Court can assume jurisdiction and give due course to the instant
petition for quo warranto against Respondent who is an impeachable officer and against
whom an impeachment complaint has already been filed with the House of
Representatives;
4.) Whether or not the petition is dismissible outright on the ground of prescription;
5.) Whether or not Respondent is eligible for the position of Chief Justice:
a. Whether the determination of a candidate’s eligibility for nomination is the sole and
exclusive function of the JBC, and whether such determination partakes of the character
of a political question outside the Court’s supervisory and review powers;
b. Whether Respondent failed to file her SALNs as mandated by the Constitution and
required by the law and its implementing rules and regulations; and if so, whether the
failure to file SALNs voids the nomination and appointment of Respondent as Chief
Justice;
c. Whether Respondent failed to comply with the submission of SALNs as required by
the JBC; and if so, whether the failure to submit SALNs to the JBC voids the nomination
and appointment of Respondent as Chief Justice; and
d. In case of a finding that Respondent is ineligible to hold the position of Chief Justice,
whether the subsequent nomination by the JBC and the appointment by the President
cured such ineligibility.
6.) Whether Respondent is a de jure or de facto officer.

Rulings: The Supreme Court has ruled on the aforementioned issues as follows:
On the issue of the motion for intervention filed by the IBP, The Court has denied
their motion on the basis that the IBP has no legal interest in the case. The Court also
provides that there are no basis for the respondent’s claims that all of the five Associate
Justices, to whom she filed motions for inhibition, are biased and prejudice. The SC
further argued that their appearance to the Congress’ Committee on Justice is within the
metes and bounds of their functions.

The Court also ruled that under Section 5, Article VIII, of the Constitution, the SC
has been vested the jurisdiction over quo warranto petitions, provided that the issue is
of transcendental importance which involves public concern. The SC also answered the
respondent’s claim that she cannot be ousted because she is an impeachable officer
and the quo warranto action will not prosper. The Court explained that the origin, nature
and purpose of impeachment and quo warranto are different - in terms of jurisdiction,
grounds, applicable rules rules pertaining to initiation, filing and dismissal, and
limitations. In quo warranto, the cause of action lies on the usurping, intruding, or
unlawfully holding or exercising of a public office, while in impeachment, it is the
commission of an impeachable offense. Likewise, the reliefs sought in the two
proceedings are different. Respondent in a quo warranto proceeding shall be ordered to
cease holding a public office, which he/she is ineligible to hold. On the other hand, in
impeachment, a conviction shall result in the removal of the Respondent from the public
office that he or she is legally holding. Furthermore, the SC’s exercise of its jurisdiction
over a quo warranto petition is not an usurpation of the doctrine of separation of powers
between government branches.

The Court also primarily explains that the respondent’s claim for the prescription
of filing a quo warranto case against her has already lapsed. However, the SC tells that
since the State is not a private individual, but it is the government looking for relief for a
public wrong and on a case with paramount public interest, the general rule of one-year
limitation shall not apply.

The Court also argues in its decision that Sereno, is originally not eligible for the
Chief Justice position because she failed to meet the requirement of possession of
proven integrity, as required by the supreme law of the land – Constitution, and such
requisite, after failing to pass her SALN violating Section 17, Art XI of the Constitution
and R.A. No. 3019, cannot be waived or bargained by the JBC. As an Associate Justice
who seeks to be appointed as the CJ, she is required to provide the last 10 SALNs, and
the absence of which will make her miss her chance from the spot. However, she was
able to provide her SALNs from the years required. However, Respondent’s disposition
to commit deliberate acts and omissions demonstrating dishonesty and lack of
forthrightness are discordant with any claim of integrity.

Lastly, the Court explains that Sereno is a de facto officer, who is lacking of a
Constitutional requisite. Thus, making her ineligible to hold the position of Chief Justice.
The Supreme Court, then, has GRANTED the Petition for Quo Warranto, deeming
Respondent Sereno DISQUALIFIED and GUILTY of UNLAWFULLY HOLDING and
EXERCISING the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE. Sereno is now OUSTED.

In Associate Justice Noel Tijam’s opinion on the matter, he said that the decision
was based on the following thoughts “In an appointee to the position of Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court must be the exemplar of honesty, probity and integrity. The purpose
of this requirement is self-evident as the Chief Justice heads the Judiciary and
adjudicates cases as a member of the Court that "has the last word on what the law is.
No one is above the law.
 Intervenor – One who seeks to join the case even though he or she is an outside
party to ensure that his or her interests are fairly represented.

Quo Warranto – you are not qualified from the beginning and it’s as if you never entered
or assumed the position.

Impeachment – you are qualified BUT you made something WRONG with your position,
making you eligible for ouster due to cases filed.

Doctrine of separation of powers – legislative, executive and judiciary cannot usurp or

overpower or undermine all the vested rights, duties and powers of each other.