Republic of the Philippines Vs. Maria Lourdes P. A.

Sereno
G.R. No. 237428. May 11, 2018

FACTS:
On August 2010, Sereno was appointed as Associate Justice. On 2012, the position of Chief Justice was
declared vacant, and the JBC directed the applicants to submit documents, among which are “all previous SALNs
up to December 31, 2011” for those in the government and “SALN as of December 31, 2011” for those from the
private sector. The JBC announcement further provided that “applicants with incomplete or out-of-date
documentary requirements will not be interviewed or considered for nomination.” Sereno expressed in a letter to
JBC that since she resigned from UP Law on 2006 and became a private practitioner, she was treated as coming
from the private sector and only submitted three (3) SALNs or her SALNs from the time she became an
Associate Justice. Sereno likewise added that “considering that most of her government records in the academe
are more than 15 years old, it is reasonable to consider it infeasible to retrieve all of those files,” and that the
clearance issued by UP HRDO and CSC should be taken in her favor. There was no record that the letter was
deliberated upon. Despite this, on a report to the JBC, Sereno was said to have “complete requirements.” On
August 2012, Sereno was appointed Chief Justice.

On February 2018, Atty. Eligio Mallari wrote to the OSG, requesting that the latter, in representation of
the Republic, initiate a quo warranto proceeding against Sereno. The OSG, invoking the Court’s original
jurisdiction under Section 5(1), Article VIII of the Constitution in relation to the special civil action under Rule 66,
the Republic, through the OSG filed the petition for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of quo warranto to
declare as void Sereno’s appointment as CJ of the SC and to oust and altogether exclude Sereno therefrom.

Issue: Whether the Court can assume jurisdiction and give due course to the instant petition for quo warranto.

Held: . Quo warranto proceedings are essentially judicial in character – it calls for the exercise of the Supreme
Court’s constitutional duty and power to decide cases and settle actual controversies. This constitutional duty
cannot be abdicated or transferred in favor of, or in deference to, any other branch of the government including
the Congress, even as it acts as an impeachment court through the Senate.

To differentiate from impeachment, quo warranto involves a judicial determination of the eligibility or
validity of the election or appointment of a public official based on predetermined rules while impeachment is a
political process to vindicate the violation of the public’s trust. In quo warranto proceedings referring to offices
filled by appointment, what is determined is the legality of the appointment. The title to a public office may not
be contested collaterally but only directly, by quo warranto proceedings. usurpation of a public office is treated
as a public wrong and carries with it public interest, and as such, it shall be commenced by a verified petition
brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines through the Solicitor General or a public prosecutor. The
SolGen is given permissible latitude within his legal authority in actions for quo warranto, circumscribed only by
the national interest and the government policy on the matter at hand.

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

impeachable official may be removed from office.

The language of Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution does not foreclose a quo warranto action
against impeachable officers: “Section 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.” The provision uses the permissive term “may” which denote
discretion and cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect, indicative of a mere possibility, an opportunity,
or an option. In American jurisprudence, it has been held that “the express provision for removal by
impeachment ought not to be taken as a tacit prohibition of removal by other methods when there are other
adequate reasons to account for this express provision.
 Sereno’s ineligibility for lack of proven integrity cannot be cured by her nomination and subsequent
appointment as Chief Justice.

Well-settled is the rule that qualifications for public office must be possessed at the time of appointment
and assumption of office and also during the officer’s entire tenure as a continuing requirement. The voidance of
the JBC nomination as a necessary consequence of the Court’s finding that Sereno is ineligible, in the first place,
to be a candidate for the position of Chief Justice and to be nominated for said position follows as a matter of
course. The Court has ample jurisdiction to do so without the necessity of impleading the JBC as the Court can
take judicial notice of the explanations from the JBC members and the OEO. he Court, in a quo warranto
proceeding, maintains the power to issue such further judgment determining the respective rights in and to the
public office, position or franchise of all the parties to the action as justice requires.

Sereno is a de facto officer removable through quo warranto

The effect of a finding that a person appointed to an office is ineligible therefor is that his presumably
valid appointment will give him color of title that confers on him the status of a de facto officer. For lack of a
Constitutional qualification, Sereno is ineligible to hold the position of Chief Justice and is merely holding a
colorable right or title thereto. As such, Sereno has never attained the status of an impeachable official and her
removal from the office, other than by impeachment, is justified. The remedy, therefore, of a quo warranto at
the instance of the State is proper to oust Sereno from the appointive position of Chief Justice.