CONSTI 1 Case Digest Prepared by: Reva Leza Imabelle G.

Tatad
Republic v. Sereno (MR)
The Judicial Department: Removal

Court En Banc
Citation GR No. 237428
Date June 19, 2018
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose Calida
Respondent Maria Lourdes Sereno
Ponente Tijam, J.
Case Summary/Backgrounder
Disqualification/Removal of CJ Sereno via Quo Warranto

May 11, 2018 – Court released a decision granting the petition for quo warranto against Sereno for holding the Chief
Justice position without proven integrity by her non-submission of the required SALNs

June 19, 2018 - (present petition) Motion for Reconsideration sought by Sereno

ITCAB, the Court affirmed its previous decision.

Relevant Articles in the 1987 Constitution/Other Legal Basis:

Section 5, Article VIII

Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions
for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus

Section 4, Article VII

Sec. 4. The Supreme Court, sitting  en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.

Section 2, Article XI

Sec. 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.

Section 11, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court

Section 11.  Limitations. — 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 Court basically refuted each argument made by Sereno to overturn the prior decision. The point-by-point
arguments and counterarguments are detailed as follows:

I. DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS CLAIM & INHIBITION OF SIX JUSTICES REJECTED

SERENO ARGUED COURT HELD

-claims denial of due process because her case was
not heard by an impartial tribunal; the court took
notice of extraneous matters as evidence and that the
prior decision was made without observing the
mandatory procedure for reception of evidence
-Sereno refused to acknowledge the court’s jurisdiction (bec
she doesn’t believe the court had quo warranto power over
impeachable officers) but still sought relief in the court
which the court heard despite her voicing sentiments on
traditional and social media. Court found this preposterous.

-six Justices ought to have inhibited themselves on the -mere imputation of bias or partiality is not enough ground
grounds of actual bias, of having personal knowledge for inhibition, especially when the charge is without basis.
of disputed evidentiary facts, and of having acted as a Acts or conduct clearly indicative of arbitrariness or
material witness in the matter in controversy prejudice has to be shown.
CONSTI 1 Case Digest
Republic v. Sereno (MR)
The Judicial Department: Removal
-alleges prejudice as the draft of the main decision was
being prepared as early as March 15, 2018 when
respondent has yet to file her Comment
-the query made by a member of the court to the JBC
Office of the Executive Officer is irregular and
prejudicial
II. QUO WARRANTO AFFIRMED
SERENO ARGUED
-Court cannot take cognizance of the case on quo
warranto against impeachable officers under Sec. 5
Art. VIII (see above) which limits its jurisdiction on
certain public officials (hindi kasi naka enumerate dun
ang mga impeachable including Chief Justice position)
-Under Sec. 4 Art VII (see above), the Court acting as
the Presidential Electoral Tribunal only decides on the
qualifications of the President and Vice President
because of the express constitutional mandate. No
similar constitutional provision is found giving the
same authority over the Chief Justice.
-Only under Sec 2, Art. XI (see above) can a Chief
Justice be removed via impeachment
-The Estrada cases cannot serve as precedent for quo
warranto because they were about the presidential
immunity from suit; they were dismissed and were
filed within the one-year prescriptive period
Prepared by: Reva Leza Imabelle G. Tatad
-merely based on speculations, or on distortions of the
language, context and meaning of the answers given by the
concerned Justices as resource persons in the proceedings of
the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives
-Inhibition would result to forum shopping on the part of
Sereno wherein she would instead shop for other Members
of Court who she perceives to be more friendly to her cause;
antithetical to justice
-Petition was filed on March 5, 2018 so there is nothing
wrong with a member of the court making an initial
determination on the matter; actually shows diligence of
work
-the query was simply to gather information from the JBC as
custodian and repository of documents submitted by Sereno
COURT HELD
-All three constitutional provisions should be read together
to effectuate the purpose of the Constitution.
-Sec.2 Art. XI provides grounds for impeachment of
impeachable officers. Lack of qualifications is not among
such grounds. Under Sec.5 Art. VIII, the Court is given
original jurisdiction on all cases of quo warranto which this
case rightly falls under being not within the ambit of
impeachment. Sec.4 Art. VII expressly authorized the court
to pass upon the qualifications of the President and Vice-
President. Thus, the proscription against the removal of
public officers other than by impeachment does not apply to
quo warranto actions assailing the impeachable officer's
eligibility for appointment or election.
-The Estrada cases were dismissed due to lack of merit, not
because the court had no jurisdiction over quo warranto
cases. The one-year period does not apply in this case, as will
be discussed below.
-The issue here is Sereno’s qualifications when she assumed
the CJ position, not violations in her incumbency so her case
can be tried via quo warranto for unlawfully holding the
position without requisite qualifications.
-The quo warranto petition will allow the court to remove an
official who, for example, is not natural-born (natural-born
citizenship being one of the requirements of the office)
CONSTI 1 Case Digest
Republic v. Sereno (MR)
The Judicial Department: Removal
III. THE SENATE AS SOLE JUDGE OF IMPEACHMENT CASES NOT ENCROACHED
SERENO ARGUED
-Senate Resolution No. 738 is now pending which
urges the Court to review the May 11, 2018 decision
as it sets a "dangerous precedent that transgresses the
exclusive powers of the legislative branch to initiate,
try and decide all cases of impeachment."; aimed to
express "the sense of the Senate to uphold the
Constitution on the matter of removing
a Chief Justice from office"
IV. THE COURT’S SUPERVISION POWER OVER THE JBC EMPHASIZED
SERENO ARGUED
-The determination of the integrity requirement lies
solely on the JBC's discretion and thus, a prior
nullification of the JBC's act on the ground of grave
abuse of discretion through a certiorari petition is the
proper legal route.
-Gusto ni Sereno na the court should instead run after
the JBC, not her, because they were the ones who
screened her and found her eligible. So, isn’t it JBC’s
obligation now to answer what happened during the
application? Certiorari on grave abuse dapat, hindi
daw quo warranto. Ini-imply niya dito na dapat
kasama ang JBC sa mga sasagot sa allegations on her
integrity daw.
V. ONE-YEAR PRESCRIPTION ON QUO WARRANTO NOT APPLICABLE
SERENO ARGUED
-Based on Rule 66 (see above), actions for quo
warranto should only be made within a year. Sereno
has been in office more than a year and no such action
was done, so she contends the prescriptive period has
already lapsed.
Prepared by: Reva Leza Imabelle G. Tatad
COURT HELD
-The said resolution has not yet been adopted by the Senate.
Without such approval, the resolution amounts to nothing
but a mere scrap of paper at present.
-The main decision is not violative or intrusive to the
Senate’s exclusive power to try and decide cases of
impeachment. It was in fact acknowledged in that decision.
-Quo warranto and impeachment cases can proceed
simultaneously although one may not see to its end for
mootness due to resolution of the other.
-Anything within judicial power should not be interfered by
Senate as per separation of powers
COURT HELD
-While the JBC enjoys leeway in the screening process, it is
still bound by constitutional mandates as to the
qualifications of applicants. Thus, it is subject to the Court’s
judicial power and has limited recommendatory functions.
-Under its power of supervision, the Court has authority to
look into the processes leading to Sereno's nomination for
the position of Chief Justice on the face of the Republic's
contention that she was ineligible to be a candidate to the
position to begin with.
-If the Court allows certiorari petition against the JBC on the
ground of grave abuse instead of assailing Sereno’s
qualification directly based on facts, it will have to wait for
someone to invoke the court’s power on deciding the
certiorari petition. It will also limit the court’s supervision
power over the JBC.
-The rules on quo warranto do not require that the
recommending or appointing authority be impleaded as a
necessary party, much less makes the nullification of the act
of the recommending authority a condition precedent
before the remedy of quo warranto can be availed of. The
JBC itself did not bother to intervene in the instant petition.
COURT HELD
-A prescriptive period for the filing of an action for quo
warranto reveals that such limitation can be applied only
against private individuals claiming rights to a public office,
not against the State.
-There is no proprietary right over a public office.
-No organized society would allow, much more a prudent
court would consider, the State to have waived by mere
lapse of time, its right to uphold and ensure compliance with
the requirements for such office fixed by no less than the
Constitution.
-The State is addressing here the absurd situation of paying
salary to someone unqualified for the position.
-It would be injurious to public interest if not resolved based
on mere lapse of time.
-The prescriptive period ruling is not based on the Civil Code
CONSTI 1 Case Digest
Republic v. Sereno (MR)
The Judicial Department: Removal
VI. NO CONTRARY PROOF PRESENTED TO REBUT NON-FILING OF SALNs
SERENO ARGUED
-Claims her case should be heard and tried like
Concerned Taxpayer v. Doblada, Jr. wherein the Court
ruled that one cannot readily conclude that a person
has failed to file his SALN simply because these
documents are missing in the files of those who are
required to keep them
VII. NON-FILING OF SALNs EQUALS NO PROVEN INTEGRITY
SERENO ARGUED
-The measure of integrity should be as what the JBC
sets it to be and that in any case, the SALN laws, being
malum prohibitum, do not concern adherence to
moral and ethical principles.
RULING
Prepared by: Reva Leza Imabelle G. Tatad
(Art. 1108). That article mention was merely to show that if
the principle that "prescription does not lie against the
State" can be applied with regard to property disputes, what
more if the underlying consideration is public interest.
COURT HELD
-Sereno, unlike Doblada, did not present contrary proof to
rebut the Certifications from U.P. HRDO that her
SALNs for 1986, 1987, 1988, 1992, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003,
2004, 2005 and 2006 are not in its possession and from the
Ombudsman that based on its records, there is no
SALN filed by respondent except that for 1998. Being
uncontroverted, these documents sufficed to support the
Court's conclusion that respondent failed to file her
SALNs in accordance with law.
-Doblada presented contrary proof in the form of the letter
of the head of the personnel in charge of his SALN.
-Public agencies enjoy a presumption that official duty has
been regularly performed.
-While government employees cannot be required to keep
their SALNs for more than 10 years, the same cannot
substitute for respondent's manifest ineligibility at the time
of her application.
Even her more recent SALNs, such as those in the years of
2002 to 2006, which in the ordinary course of things would
have been easier to retrieve, were not presented
nor accounted for by respondent.
COURT HELD
-The filing of SALN is not only a requirement under the law,
but a positive duty required from every public officer or
employee, first and foremost by the Constitution.
-The violation of SALN laws, by itself, defeats any claim of
integrity as it is inherently immoral to violate the will of the
legislature and to violate the Constitution.
-Integrity, at its minimum, entails compliance with the law.
-Point is Sereno did not file her SALNs accordingly upon
assumption of office so she was not able to show her
integrity.
CONSTI 1 Case Digest Prepared by: Reva Leza Imabelle G. Tatad
Republic v. Sereno (MR)
The Judicial Department: Removal

WHEREFORE, respondent Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno's Ad Cautelam Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with
FINALITY for lack of merit. No further pleadings shall be entertained. Let entry of judgment be made immediately.
The Court REITERATES its order to the Judicial and Bar Council to commence the application and nomination process
for the position of the Chief Justice without delay. The ninety-day (90) period for filling the vacancy shall be reckoned
from the date of the promulgation of this Resolution.

SO ORDERED.

All justices who voted for and against in the original decision maintained their votes and their contention as to their
concurrence and dissent.

NOTES

Distinguishing Quo Warranto from Impeachment

Quo warranto and impeachment are two distinct proceedings, although both may result in the ouster of a public officer.
Strictly speaking, quo warranto grants the relief of "ouster," while impeachment affords "removal."

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. HEITAD

Impeachment, on the other hand, 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 of the impeachable official from office.