Constitutional Law 1

Submitted by: EVASCO, JOAN E. JD 1

Title: Republic VS. Sereno

Citation: G.R. NO. 237428
Date: MAY 11, 2018

FACTS:
When the position of Chief Justice was declared vacant, in 2012 and the
Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) directed applicants to submit their documents,
which includes their SALNs up to December 31, 2011 for those in the
government and from those in the private sector. In his letter of intent, Sereno
articulated to the JBC that since she is a resigned UP Law professor in 2006 and
became a private practitioner, hence she is only submitted 3 SALNs or her
SALNs from the time she was appointed as an Associate Justice and was
appointed as Chief Justice on August of the same year.

However on August 2017, an impeachment complaint was filed by Atty.

Larry Gardon against Sereno, declaring that Sereno failed to make truthful
declarations in her SALNs. The House of Representatives proceeded to hear the
case for the determination of probable cause.
 
          Respondent Sereno filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the Supreme
Court’s decision dated May 11, 2018 which found respondent guilty of unlawfully
holding and exercising the Office if the Chief Justice.
Respondent reasoned that the Court is without jurisdiction to oust an
impeachable officer through a quo warranto; that the official acts of the Judicial
and Bar Council (JBC) and the President involves political questions that cannot
be annulled absent any allegation of grave abuse of discretion; that the petition
for quo warranto is time-barred; and that respondent was and is a person of
proven integrity.
OSG argued that quo warranto was the appropriate remedy because what
was being sought after was to question the validity of her appointment.
Furthermore, the OSG adds that the issue of whether respondent was a person
of integrity is justiciable considering that the decision-making powers of the JBC
are limited by judicially discoverable standards. Undeviating from its position, the
OSG maintains that the petition is not time-barred as Section 11, Rule 66 of the
Rules of Court does not apply to the State and that the peculiar circumstances of
the instant case preclude the strict application of the prescriptive period.
The OSG further gives emphasis that the respondent's repeated failure to
file her SALN and her non-submission thereof to the JBC which the latter
required to prove the integrity of an applicant affect respondent's integrity. Given
such non submission the OSG concludes that respondent, not having possessed
of proven integrity, failed to meet the constitutional requirement for appointment
to the Judiciary.

 
 
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the court can assume jurisdiction and give dure course
to the instant petition for quo warranto.

2. Whether respondent is eligible to occupy the position of Chief Justice.

3. Whether Sereno who is an impeachable officer can be a respondent in

a quo warranto proceeding; and if it is the only way to remove an
impeachable officer.
 
 
RULING:
1. Under Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is stated that the
Supreme Court shall have the power to 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 5 of Article VIII however, does not limit the Court's
quo warranto jurisdiction only to certain public officials or that excludes
impeachable officials therefrom.

Given the fact that this is not the first time the Court took
cognizance of a quo warranto petition against an impeachable officer. In
the consolidated cases of Estrada v. Macapagal-Arroyo and Estrada v.
Desierto, the Court assumed jurisdiction over a quo warranto petition that
challenged Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's title to the presidency.
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.

2. To determine whether or not respondent is eligible, the primordial

consideration is whether respondent met the necessary Constitutional
requirements for the position of CJ. Questions on eligibility therefore
present a justiciable issue, which can be resolved by comparing the facts
within the Constitution, as well as pertinent laws and jurisprudence.

Clearly, the OSG questioned the respondent's eligibility for

appointment as Chief Justice and sought to invalidate such appointment.
The OSG's petition, therefore, is one for quo warranto over which the
Court exercises original jurisdiction,
When respondent argues that her alleged failure to file SALNs does
not mean she has no integrity because the SALN laws are malum
prohibitum and do not concern adherence to moral and ethical principles.
However, Respondent’s argument disregard that the filing of SALN is not
only a requirement under the law, but a positive duty required from every
public officer or employee,
 Clarifying the matter that first and foremost; the SALN laws were
passed in aid of the enforcement of the Constitutional duty to submit a
declaration under oath of one’s assets, liabilities, and net worth. This
positive Constitutional duty of filing one’s SALN is so sensitive and
important that it even shares the same category as the Constitutional duty
imposed upon public officers and employees to owe allegiance to the
State and the Constitution. As such, offenses against the SALN laws are
not ordinary offenses but violations of a duty which every public officer and
employee owes to the State and the Constitution. In other words, 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.
Given, Integrity contemplates both adherence to the highest moral
standards and obedience to laws and legislations. Integrity, at its
minimum, entails compliance with the law.

3. To differentiate impeachment, quo warranto; impeachment is the

process by which a legislative body or other legally constituted tribunal
initiates charges against a public official for misconduct. It may be
understood as a unique process involving both political and legal
elements; while the later is a legal proceeding which is used to challenge
a person's legal right to hold public office; meanwhile, an impeachment is
the process of charging a high public official on the grounds of culpable
violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption,
or other high crimes.
A quo warranto and impeachment may proceed independently of
each other as these remedies are distinct to jurisdiction, grounds,
applicable rules pertaining to initiation, filing and dismissal and its
limitations.

Respondent in a quo warranto proceedings are shall be declared to

cease holdings of a public office, which he/she is ineligible to hold.
In the case of impeachment, it is not exclusive remedy in which an
invalidity of an appointed or elected official may be removed from
office.

Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution does not foreclose a quo

warranto action against impeachable officers; hence the term “may”
denotes discretion and cannot be construed as having mandatory
effect, indicative of mere possibility or an option.

Sereno’s failure to submit to the JBC her SALNs for several years
means that her integrity was not established during her application.
Failure to submit the required SALNs means that the JBC and the public
are divested of the opportunity to consider the applicant’s natural tendency
to commit corruption.