0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
1K visualizzazioni14 pagine
1) The Office of the Solicitor General filed a quo warranto petition to remove Chief Justice Sereno from office, alleging she failed to submit complete statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required.
2) Sereno argues she can only be removed through impeachment according to the Constitution. The OSG contends quo warranto is allowed when the act in question occurred prior to appointment and renders the appointment invalid.
3) The key issue is whether Sereno can be removed via quo warranto for alleged failures to submit complete SALNs or only through impeachment as an impeachable official.
1) The Office of the Solicitor General filed a quo warranto petition to remove Chief Justice Sereno from office, alleging she failed to submit complete statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required.
2) Sereno argues she can only be removed through impeachment according to the Constitution. The OSG contends quo warranto is allowed when the act in question occurred prior to appointment and renders the appointment invalid.
3) The key issue is whether Sereno can be removed via quo warranto for alleged failures to submit complete SALNs or only through impeachment as an impeachable official.
1) The Office of the Solicitor General filed a quo warranto petition to remove Chief Justice Sereno from office, alleging she failed to submit complete statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required.
2) Sereno argues she can only be removed through impeachment according to the Constitution. The OSG contends quo warranto is allowed when the act in question occurred prior to appointment and renders the appointment invalid.
3) The key issue is whether Sereno can be removed via quo warranto for alleged failures to submit complete SALNs or only through impeachment as an impeachable official.
REPUBLIC of the PHILIPPINES, Net Worth (SALN) were on the
represented by SOLICITOR records of UP HRDO. In a
GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA v. manifestation, she attached a copy MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO, of a tenth SALN, which she supposedly sourced from the “filing G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018 [J. cabinets” or “drawers of UP”. The Tijam, En Banc] Ombudsman likewise had no record of any SALN filed by Sereno. The DOCTRINE OF THE CASE: JBC has certified to the existence of one SALN. In sum, for 20 years of Quo warranto as a remedy to oust service, 11 SALNs were recovered. an ineligible public official may be availed of when the subject act or On August 2010, Sereno was omission was committed prior to or appointed as Associate Justice. On at the time of appointment or 2012, the position of Chief Justice election relating to an official’s was declared vacant, and the JBC qualifications to hold office as to directed the applicants to submit render such appointment or election documents, among which are “all invalid. Acts or omissions, even if it previous SALNs up to December 31, relates to the qualification of 2011” for those in the government integrity being a continuing and “SALN as of December 31, requirement but nonetheless 2011” for those from the private committed during the incumbency sector. The JBC announcement of a validly appointed and/or validly further provided that “applicants elected official cannot be the subject with incomplete or out-of-date of a quo warranto proceeding, but of documentary requirements will not impeachment if the public official be interviewed or considered for concerned is impeachable and the nomination.” Sereno expressed in a act or omission constitutes an letter to JBC that since she resigned impeachable offense, or to from UP Law on 2006 and became a disciplinary, administrative or private practitioner, she was treated criminal action, if otherwise. as coming from the private sector and only submitted three (3) SALNs FACTS: or her SALNs from the time she became an Associate Justice. Sereno From 1986 to 2006, Sereno served likewise added that “considering as a member of the faculty of the that most of her government records University of the Philippines-College in the academe are more than 15 of Law. While being employed at the years old, it is reasonable to UP Law, or from October 2003 to consider it infeasible to retrieve all 2006, Sereno was concurrently of those files,” and that the employed as legal counsel of the clearance issued by UP HRDO and Republic in two international CSC should be taken in her favor. arbitrations known as the PIATCO There was no record that the letter cases, and a Deputy Commissioner was deliberated upon. Despite this, of the Commissioner on Human on a report to the JBC, Sereno was Rights. said to have “complete requirements.” On August 2012, The Human Resources Development Sereno was appointed Chief Justice. Office of UP (UP HRDO) certified that there was no record on Sereno’s On August 2017, an impeachment file of any permission to engage in complaint was filed by Atty. Larry limited practice of profession. Gadon against Sereno, alleging that Moreover, out of her 20 years of Sereno failed to make truthful employment, only nine (9) declarations in her SALNs. The Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and House of Representatives proceeded to hear the case for determination of Desierto and Nacionalista Party v. De probable cause, and it was said that Vera. OSG maintains that the Justice Peralta, the chairman of the phrase “may be removed from office” JBC then, was not made aware of in Section 2, Article XI of the the incomplete SALNs of Sereno. Constitution means that Members of Other findings were made: such as the SC may be removed through pieces of jewelry amounting to modes other than impeachment. P15,000, that were not declared on her 1990 SALN, but was declared in OSG contends that it is seasonably prior years’ and subsequent years’ filed within the one-year SALNs, failure of her husband to reglementary period under Section sign one SALN, execution of the 11, Rule 66 since Sereno’s 1998 SALN only in 2003 transgressions only came to light during the impeachment On February 2018, Atty. Eligio proceedings. Moreover, OSG claims Mallari wrote to the OSG, requesting that it has an imprescriptible right that the latter, in representation of to bring a quo warranto petition the Republic, initiate a quo warranto under the maxim nullum tempus proceeding against Sereno. The occurit regi (“no time runs against OSG, invoking the Court’s original the king”) or prescription does not jurisdiction under Section 5(1), operate against the government. The Article VIII of the Constitution in State has a continuous interest in relation to the special civil action ensuring that those who partake of under Rule 66, the Republic, its sovereign powers are qualified. through the OSG filed the petition Even assuming that the one-year for the issuance of the extraordinary period is applicable to the OSG, writ of quo warranto to declare as considering that SALNs are not void Sereno’s appointment as CJ of published, the OSG will have no the SC and to oust and altogether other means by which to know the exclude Sereno therefrom. disqualification. [yourlawyersays] Moreover, OSG maintains that the Capistrano, Sen. De Lima, Sen. SC has jurisdiction, citing A.M. No. Trillianes, et. al., intervened. Sereno 10-4-20-SC which created a then filed a Motion for Inhibition permanent Committee on Ethics against AJ Bersamin, Peralta, and Ethical Standards, tasked to Jardeleza, Tijam, and Leonardo-De investigate complaints involving Castro, imputing actual bias for graft and corruption and ethical having testified against her on the violations against members of the impeachment hearing before the SC and contending that this is not a House of Representatives. political question because such issue may be resolved through the Contentions: interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, laws, JBC rules, Office of the Solicitor General and Canons of Judicial Ethics. (petitioner): OSG seeks to oust Sereno from her OSG argues that the quo warranto is position as CJ on the ground that an available remedy because what is Sereno failed to show that she is a being sought is to question the person of proven integrity which is validity of her appointment, while an indispensable qualification for the impeachment complaint accuses membership in the Judiciary under her of committing culpable violation Section 7(3), Article VIII of the of the Constitution and betrayal of Constitution. According to the OSG, public trust while in office, citing because OSG failed to fulfill the JBC Funa v. Chairman Villar, Estrada v. requirement of filing the complete SALNs, her integrity remains other than impeachment on the unproven. The failure to submit her basis of Section 4, Article VII of the SALN, which is a legal obligation, 1987 Constitution vesting in the should have disqualified Sereno Court the power to be the “sole from being a candidate; therefore, judge” of all contests relating to the she has no right to hold the office. qualifications of the President and Good faith cannot be considered as the Vice-President. There is no such a defense since the Anti-Graft and provision for other impeachable Corrupt Practices Act (RA No. 3019) officers. Moreover, on the rest of the and Code of Conduct and Ethical cases cited by the OSG, there is no Standards for Public Officials and mention that quo warranto may be Employees (RA No. 6713) are special allowed. laws and are thus governed by the concept of malum prohibitum, Sereno also argues that since a wherein malice or criminal intent is petition for quo warranto may be completely immaterial. filed before the RTC, such would result to a conundrum because a Sereno (respondent): judge of lower court would have effectively exercised disciplinary Sereno contends that an power and administrative impeachable officer may only be supervision over an official of the ousted through impeachment, citing Judiciary much higher in rank and Section 2 of Article XI of the is contrary to Sections 6 and 11, Constitution, and Mayor Lecaroz v. Article VIII of the Constitution which Sandiganbayan, Cuenca v. Hon. vests upon the SC disciplinary and Fernan, In Re: First lndorsement administrative power over all courts from Hon. Gonzales, and Re: and the personnel thereof. Complaint-Affidavit for Disbarment Against SAJ Antonio T. Carpio. Sereno likewise posits that if a Sereno contends that the clear Member of the SC can be ousted intention of the framers of the through quo warranto initiated by Constitution was to create an the OSG, the Congress’ “check” on exclusive category of public officers the SC through impeachment would who can be removed only by be rendered inutile. impeachment and not otherwise. Impeachment was chosen as the Furthermore, Sereno argues that it method of removing certain high- is already time-barred. Section 11, ranking government officers to Rule 66 provides that a petition for shield them from harassment suits quo warranto must be filed within that will prevent them from one (1) year from the “cause of performing their functions which are ouster” and not from the “discovery” vital to the continued operations of of the disqualification. government. Sereno further argues that the word “may” on Section 2 of Moreover, Sereno contends that the Article XI only qualifies the penalty Court cannot presume that she imposable after the impeachment failed to file her SALNs because as a trial, i.e., removal from office. public officer, she enjoys the Sereno contends that the since the presumption that her appointment mode is wrong, the SC has no to office was regular. OSG failed to jurisdiction. overcome the presumption created by the certifications from UP HRDO Sereno likewise argues that the that she had been cleared of all cases cited by OSG is not in all administrative responsibilities and fours with the present case because charges. Her integrity is a political the President and the Vice President question which can only be decided may, in fact, be removed by means by the JBC and the President. Regarding her missing SALNs, the respondent in a quo Sereno contends that the fact that warranto proceeding, i.e., SALNs are missing cannot give rise whether the only way to to the inference that they are not remove an impeachable officer filed. The fact that 11 SALNs were is impeachment. filed should give an inference to a 6. Whether to take cognizance of pattern of filing, not of non-filing. the quo warranto proceeding is violative of the principle of Intervenors’ arguments: separation of powers 7. Whether the petition is The intervenors argue that it is not outrightly dismissible on the incumbent upon Sereno to prove to ground of prescription the JBC that she possessed the 8. Whether the determination of integrity required by the a candidate’s eligibility for Constitution; rather, the onus of nomination is the sole and determining whether or not she exclusive function of the JBC qualified for the post fell upon the and whether such JBC. Moreover, submission of determination. partakes of the SALNs is not a constitutional character of a political requirement; what is only required question outside the Court’s is the imprimatur of the JBC. The supervisory and review intervenors likewise contend that powers; “qualifications” such as citizenship, 9. Whether the filing of SALN is a age, and experience are enforceable constitutional and statutory while “characteristics” such as requirement for the position of competence, integrity, probity, and Chief Justice. independence are mere subjective 10. If answer to ninth issue considerations. is in the affirmative, whether Sereno failed to file her SALNs ISSUES: as mandated by the Constitution and required by Preliminary issues: the law and its implementing rules and regulations 1. Whether the Court should 11. If answer to ninth issue entertain the motion for is in the affirmative, whether intervention Sereno filed SALNs are not 2. Whether the Court should filed properly and promptly. grant the motion for the 12. Whether Sereno failed inhibition of Sereno against to comply with the submission five Justices of SALNs as required by the JBC Main Issues: 13. If answer to the twelfth issue is in the affirmative, 3. Whether the Court can whether the failure to submit assume jurisdiction and give SALNs to the JBC voids the due course to the instant nomination and appointment petition for quo warranto. of Sereno as Chief Justice; 4. Whether Sereno may be the 14. In case of a finding that respondent in a quo warranto Sereno is ineligible to hold the proceeding notwithstanding position of Chief Justice, the fact that an impeachment whether the subsequent complaint has already been nomination by the JBC and filed with the House of the appointment by the Representatives. President cured such 5. Whether Sereno, who is an ineligibility. impeachable officer, can be 15. Whether Sereno is a de It is true that a judge has both the jure or a de facto officer. duty of rendering a just decision and the duty of doing it in a manner [READ: Justice Leonen’s dissenting completely free from suspicion as to opinion: Q&A Format] its fairness and as to his integrity. However, the right of a party to seek HELD: the inhibition or disqualification of a judge who does not appear to be Anent the first issue: The wholly free, disinterested, impartial intervention is improper. and independent in handling the case must be balanced with the Intervention is a remedy by which a latter’s sacred duty to decide cases third party, not originally impleaded without fear of repression. Bias in the proceedings, becomes a must be proven with clear and litigant therein for a certain convincing evidence. Those justices purpose: to enable the third party to who were present at the protect or preserve a right or impeachment proceedings were interest that may be affected by armed with the requisite imprimatur those proceedings. The remedy of of the Court En Banc, given that the intervention is not a matter of right Members are to testify only on but rests on the sound discretion of matters within their personal the court upon compliance with the knowledge. The mere imputation of first requirement on legal interest bias or partiality is not enough and the second requirement that no ground for inhibition, especially delay and prejudice should result. when the charge is without basis. The justification of one’s “sense of There must be acts or conduct patriotism and their common desire clearly indicative of arbitrariness or to protect and uphold the Philippine prejudice before it can brand them Constitution”, and that of the with the stigma of bias or partiality. Senator De Lima’s and Trillanes’ Sereno’s call for inhibition has been intervention that their would-be based on speculations, or on participation in the impeachment distortions of the language, context trial as Senators-judges if the and meaning of the answers the articles of impeachment will be filed Justices may have given as sworn before the Senate as the witnesses in the proceedings before impeachment court will be taken the House. away is not sufficient. The interest contemplated by law must be Moreover, insinuations that the actual, substantial, material, direct Justices of the SC are towing the and immediate, and not simply line of President Duterte in contingent or expectant. Moreover, entertaining the quo warranto the petition of quo warranto is petition must be struck for being brought in the name of the unfounded and for sowing seeds of Republic. It is vested in the people, mistrust and discordance between and not in any private individual or the Court and the public. The group, because disputes over title to Members of the Court are beholden public office are viewed as a public to no one, except to the sovereign question of governmental legitimacy Filipino people who ordained and and not merely a private quarrel promulgated the Constitution. It is among rival claimants. thus inappropriate to misrepresent that the SolGen who has supposedly Anent the second issue: There is met consistent litigation success no basis for the Associate Justices before the SG shall likewise of the Supreme Court to inhibit in automatically and positively be the case. received in the present quo warranto action. As a collegial body, the Supreme Court adjudicates without based on predetermined rules while fear or favor. The best person to impeachment is a political process determine the propriety of sitting in to vindicate the violation of the a case rests with the magistrate public’s trust. In quo warranto sought to be disqualified. proceedings referring to offices filled [yourlawyersays] by appointment, what is determined is the legality of the appointment. Anent the third issue: A quo The title to a public office may not warranto petition is allowed against be contested collaterally but only impeachable officials and SC has directly, by quo warranto jurisdiction. proceedings. usurpation of a public office is treated as a public wrong The SC have concurrent jurisdiction and carries with it public interest, with the CA and RTC to issue the and as such, it shall be commenced extraordinary writs, including quo by a verified petition brought in the warranto. A direct invocation of the name of the Republic of the SC’s original jurisdiction to issue Philippines through the Solicitor such writs is allowed when there are General or a public prosecutor. The special and important reasons SolGen is given permissible latitude therefor, and in this case, direct within his legal authority in actions resort to SC is justified considering for quo warranto, circumscribed that the action is directed against only by the national interest and the the Chief Justice. Granting that the government policy on the matter at petition is likewise of transcendental hand. importance and has far-reaching implications, the Court is Anent the fourth issue: empowered to exercise its power of Simultaneous quo warranto judicial review. To exercise restraint proceeding and impeachment in reviewing an impeachable officer’s proceeding is not forum shopping appointment is a clear renunciation and is allowed. of a judicial duty. an outright dismissal of the petition based on Quo warranto and impeachment speculation that Sereno will may proceed independently of each eventually be tried on impeachment other as these remedies are distinct is a clear abdication of the Court’s as to (1) jurisdiction (2) grounds, (3) duty to settle actual controversy applicable rules pertaining to squarely presented before it. Quo initiation, filing and dismissal, and warranto proceedings are essentially (4) limitations. Forum shopping is judicial in character – it calls for the the act of a litigant who repetitively exercise of the Supreme Court’s availed of several judicial remedies constitutional duty and power to in different courts, simultaneously decide cases and settle actual or successively, all substantially controversies. This constitutional founded on the same transactions duty cannot be abdicated or and the same essential facts and transferred in favor of, or in circumstances, and all raising deference to, any other branch of substantially the same issues, either the government including the pending in or already resolved Congress, even as it acts as an adversely by some other court, to impeachment court through the increase his chances of obtaining a Senate. favorable decision if not in one court, then in another. The test for To differentiate from impeachment, determining forum shopping is quo warranto involves a judicial whether in the two (or more) cases determination of the eligibility or pending, there is identity of parties, validity of the election or rights or causes of action, and appointment of a public official reliefs sought. The crux of the controversy in this quo warranto impeachable official may be removed proceedings is the determination of from office. whether or not Sereno legally holds the Chief Justice position to be The language of Section 2, Article XI considered as an impeachable of the Constitution does not officer in the first place. On the foreclose a quo warranto action other hand, impeachment is for against impeachable officers: respondent’s prosecution for certain “Section 2. The President, the Vice- impeachable offenses. Simply put, President, the Members of the while Sereno’s title to hold a public Supreme Court, the Members of the office is the issue in quo warranto Constitutional Commissions, and proceedings, impeachment the Ombudsman may be removed necessarily presupposes that Sereno from office on impeachment for, legally holds the public office and and conviction of, culpable violation thus, is an impeachable officer, the of the Constitution, treason, bribery, only issue being whether or not she graft and corruption, other high committed impeachable offenses to crimes, or betrayal of public trust.” warrant her removal from office. The provision uses the permissive term “may” which denote discretion Moreover, the reliefs sought are and cannot be construed as having different. respondent in a quo a mandatory effect, indicative of a warranto proceeding shall be mere possibility, an opportunity, or adjudged to cease from holding a an option. In American public office, which he/she is jurisprudence, it has been held that ineligible to hold. Moreover, “the express provision for removal impeachment, a conviction for the by impeachment ought not to be charges of impeachable offenses taken as a tacit prohibition of shall result to the removal of the removal by other methods when respondent from the public office there are other adequate reasons to that he/she is legally holding. It is account for this express provision.” not legally possible to impeach or remove a person from an office that The principle in case law is that he/she, in the first place, does not during their incumbency, and cannot legally hold or occupy. impeachable officers cannot be criminally prosecuted for an offense Lastly, there can be no forum that carries with it the penalty of shopping because the impeachment removal, and if they are required to proceedings before the House is not be members of the Philippine Bar to the impeachment case proper, since qualify for their positions, they it is only a determination of cannot be charged with disbarment. probable cause. The impeachment The proscription does not extend to case is yet to be initiated by the actions assailing the public officer’s filing of the Articles of Impeachment title or right to the office he or she before the Senate. Thus, at the occupies. Even the PET Rules moment, there is no pending expressly provide for the remedy of impeachment case against Sereno. either an election protest or a The process before the House is petition for quo warranto to question merely inquisitorial and is merely a the eligibility of the President and means of discovering if a person the Vice-President, both of whom may be reasonably charged with a are impeachable officers. crime. Further, that the enumeration of Anent the fifth issue: “impeachable offenses” is made Impeachment is not an exclusive absolute, that is, only those remedy by which an invalidly enumerated offenses are treated as appointed or invalidly elected grounds for impeachment, is not equivalent to saying that the the Articles of Impeachment, nor enumeration likewise purport to be will it preclude Senate from a complete statement of the causes exercising its constitutionally of removal from office. If other committed power of impeachment. causes of removal are available, then other modes of ouster can However, logic, common sense, likewise be availed. To subscribe to reason, practicality and even the view that appointments or principles of plain arithmetic bear election of impeachable officers are out the conclusion that an outside judicial review is to cleanse unqualified public official should be their appointments or election of removed from the position any possible defect pertaining to the immediately if indeed Constitutional Constitutionally-prescribed and legal requirements were not met qualifications which cannot or breached. To abdicate from otherwise be raised in an resolving a legal controversy simply impeachment proceeding. To hold because of perceived availability of otherwise is to allow an absurd another remedy, in this case situation where the appointment of impeachment, would be to sanction an impeachable officer cannot be the initiation of a process questioned even when, for instance, specifically intended to be long and he or she has been determined to be arduous and compel the entire of foreign nationality or, in offices membership of the Legislative where Bar membership is a branch to momentarily abandon qualification, when he or she their legislative duties to focus on fraudulently represented to be a impeachment proceedings for the member of the Bar. possible removal of a public official, who at the outset, may clearly be Anent the sixth issue: The unqualified under existing laws and Supreme Court’s exercise of its case law. jurisdiction over a quo warranto petition is not violative of the For guidance, the Court demarcates doctrine of separation of powers. that an act or omission committed prior to or at the time of The Court’s assumption of appointment or election relating to jurisdiction over an action for quo an official’s qualifications to hold warranto involving a person who office as to render such appointment would otherwise be an impeachable or election invalid is properly the official had it not been for a subject of a quo warranto petition, disqualification, is not violative of provided that the requisites for the the core constitutional provision commencement thereof are present. that impeachment cases shall be Contrariwise, acts or omissions, exclusively tried and decided by the even if it relates to the qualification Senate. Again, the difference of integrity, being a continuing between quo warranto and requirement but nonetheless impeachment must be emphasized. committed during the incumbency An action for quo warranto does not of a validly appointed and/or validly try a person’s culpability of an elected official, cannot be the impeachment offense, neither does a subject of a quo warranto writ of quo warranto conclusively proceeding, but of something else, pronounce such culpability. The which may either be impeachment if Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction the public official concerned is over quo warranto proceedings does impeachable and the act or not preclude Congress from omission constitutes an enforcing its own prerogative of impeachable offense, or disciplinary, determining probable cause for administrative or criminal action, if impeachment, to craft and transmit otherwise. Anent the seventh issue: say, no prudent and just court Prescription does not lie against the would allow an unqualified person State. to hold public office, much more the highest position in the Judiciary. The rules on quo warranto provides Moreover, the Republic cannot be that “nothing contained in this Rule faulted for questioning Sereno’s shall be construed to authorize an qualification· for office only upon action against a public officer or discovery of the cause of ouster employee for his ouster from office because even up to the present, unless the same be commenced Sereno has not been candid on within one (1) year after the cause of whether she filed the required such ouster, or the right of the SALNs or not. The defect on petitioner to hold such office or Sereno’s appointment was therefore position, arose”. Previously, the one- not discernible, but was, on the year prescriptive period has been contrary, deliberately rendered applied in cases where private obscure. individuals asserting their right of office, unlike the instant case where Anent the eighth issue: The Court no private individual claims title to has supervisory authority over the the Office of the Chief Justice. JBC includes ensuring that the JBC Instead, it is the government itself complies with its own rules. which commenced the present petition for quo warranto and puts Section 8(1), Article VIII of the in issue the qualification of the Constitution provides that “A person holding the highest position Judicial and Bar Council is hereby in the Judiciary. created under the supervision of the Supreme Court.” The power of Section 2 of Rule 66 provides that supervision means “overseeing or “the Solicitor General or a public the authority of an officer to see to it prosecutor, when directed by the that the subordinate officers President of the Philippines, or when perform their duties.” JBC’s upon complaint or otherwise he has absolute autonomy from the Court good reason to believe that any case as to place its non-action or specified in the preceding section improper· actions beyond the latter’s can be established by proof must reach is therefore not what the commence such action.” It may be Constitution contemplates. What is stated that ordinary statutes of more, the JBC’s duty to recommend limitation, civil or penal, have no or nominate, although calling for the application to quo warranto exercise of discretion, is neither proceeding brought to enforce a absolute nor unlimited, and is not public right. There is no limitation automatically equivalent to an or prescription of action in an action exercise of policy decision as to for quo warranto, neither could place, in wholesale, the JBC process there be, for the reason that it was beyond the scope of the Court’s an action by the Government and supervisory and corrective powers. prescription could not be plead as a While a certain leeway must be defense to an action by the given to the JBC in screening Government. aspiring magistrates, the same does not give it an unbridled discretion to That prescription does not lie in this ignore Constitutional and legal case can also be deduced from the requirements. Thus, the nomination very purpose of an action for quo by the JBC is not accurately an warranto. Because quo warranto exercise of policy or wisdom as to serves to end a continuous place the JBC’s actions in the same usurpation, no statute of limitations category as political questions that applies to the action. Needless to the Court is barred from resolving. transparency and accountability [yourlawyersays] that failure to comply with such requirement may result not only in [READ: Justice Leonen’s dissenting dismissal from the public service opinion: Q&A Format] but also in criminal liability. Section 11 of R.A. No. 6713 even provides With this, it must be emphasized that non-compliance with this that qualifications under the requirement is not only punishable Constitution cannot be waived or by imprisonment and/or a fine, it bargained by the JBC, and one of may also result in disqualification which is that “a Member of the to hold public office. Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, Because the Chief Justice is a probity, and independence. public officer, she is constitutionally “Integrity” is closely related to, or if and statutorily mandated to perform not, approximately equated to an a positive duty to disclose all of his applicant’s good reputation for assets and liabilities. According to honesty, incorruptibility, Sereno herself in her dissenting irreproachable conduct, and fidelity opinion in one case, those who to sound moral and ethical accept a public office do so cum standards.” Integrity is likewise onere, or with a burden, and are imposed by the New Code of Judicial considered as accepting its burdens Conduct and the Code of and obligations, together with its Professional Responsibility. The benefits. They thereby subject Court has always viewed integrity themselves to all constitutional and with a goal of preserving the legislative provisions relating confidence of the litigants in the thereto, and undertake to perform Judiciary. Hence, the JBC was all the duties of their office. The created in order to ensure that a public has the right to demand the member of the Supreme Court must performance of those duties. More be a person of proven competence, importantly, while every office in the integrity, probity, and government service is a public trust, independence. no position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and Anent the ninth issue: The filing of uprightness of an individual than a SALN is a constitutional and seat in the Judiciary. statutory requirement. Noncompliance with the SALN Section 17, Article XI of the requirement indubitably·reflects on Constitution states that “A public a person’s integrity. It is not merely officer or employee shall, upon a trivial or a formal requirement. assumption of office and as often The contention that the mere non- thereafter as may be required by filing does not affect Sereno’s law, submit a declaration under integrity does not persuade oath of his assets, liabilities, and net considering that RA 6713 and RA worth.” This has likewise been 3019 are malum prohibitum and not required by RA 3019 and RA 6713. malum in se. Thus, it is the omission “Failure to comply” with the law is a or commission of that act as defined violation of law, a “prima facie by the law, and not the character or evidence of unexplained wealth, effect thereof, that determines which may result in the dismissal whether or not the provision has from service of the public officer.” It been violated. Malice or criminal is a clear breach of the ethical intent is completely immaterial. standards set for public officials and employees. The filing of the SALN is Anent the tenth issue: Sereno so important for purposes of chronically failed to file her SALNs and thus violated the Constitution, separation from government service. the law, and the Code of Judicial The fact that Sereno did not receive Conduct. any pay for the periods she was on leave does not make her a In Sereno’s 20 years of government government worker “serving in an service in UP Law, only 11 SALNs honorary capacity” to be exempted have been filed. Sereno could have from the SALN laws on RA easily dispelled doubts as to the 6713. [yourlawyersays] filing or nonfiling of the unaccounted SALNs by presenting Neither can the clearance and them before the Court. Yet, Sereno certification of UP HRDO be taken in opted to withhold such information favor of Sereno. During the period or such evidence, if at all, for no when Sereno was a professor in UP, clear reason. The Doblada case, concerned authorized official/s of invoked by Sereno, cannot be the Office of the President or the applied, because in the Doblada Ombudsman had not yet case, there was a letter of the head established compliance procedures of the personnel of the branch of the for the review of SALNs filed by court that the missing SALN exists officials and employees of State and was duly transmitted and Colleges and Universities, like U.P. received by the OCA as the The ministerial duty of the head of repository agency. In Sereno’s case, office to issue compliance order the missing SALNs are neither came about only on 2006 from the proven to be in the records of nor CSC. As such, the U.P. HRDO could was proven to have been sent to and not have been expected to perform duly received by the Ombudsman as its ministerial duty of issuing the repository agency. The existence compliance orders to Sereno when of these SALNs and the fact of filing such rule was not yet in existence at thereof were neither established by that time. Moreover, the clearance direct proof constituting substantial are not substitutes for SALNs. The evidence nor by mere inference. import of said clearance is limited Moreover, the statement of the only to clearing Sereno of her Ombudsman is categorical: “based academic and administrative on records on file, there is no SALN responsibilities, money and property filed by [Sereno] for calendar years accountabilities and from 1999 to 2009 except SALN ending administrative charges as of the December 1998.” This leads the date of her resignation. Court to conclude that Sereno did not indeed file her SALN. Neither can Sereno’s inclusion in the matrix of candidates with For this reason, the Republic was complete requirements and in the able to discharge its burden of proof shortlist nominated by the JBC with the certification from UP HRDO confirm or ratify her compliance and Ombudsman, and thus it with the SALN requirement. Her becomes incumbent upon Sereno to inclusion in the shortlist of discharge her burden of evidence. candidates for the position of Chief Further, the burden of proof in a Justice does not negate, nor supply quo warranto proceeding is different her with the requisite proof of when it is filed by the State in that integrity. She should have been the burden rests upon the disqualified at the outset. Moreover, respondent. the JBC En Banc cannot be deemed to have considered Sereno eligible In addition, contrary to what Sereno because it does not appear that contends, being on leave does not Sereno’s failure to submit her exempt her from filing her SALN SALNs was squarely addressed by because it is not tantamount to the body. Her inclusion in the shortlist of nominees and Associate Justices, absent which, subsequent appointment to the the applicant ought not to have been position do not estop the Republic interviewed, much less been or this Court from looking into her considered for nomination. From the qualifications. Verily, no estoppel minutes of the meeting of the JBC, arises where the representation or it appeared that Sereno was singled conduct of the party sought to be out from the rest of the applicants estopped is due to ignorance for having failed to submit a single founded upon an innocent mistake piece of SALN for her years of service in UP Law. It is clear that Anent the eleventh issue: Sereno JBC did not do away with the SALN failed to properly and promptly file requirement, but still required her SALNs, again in violation of the substantial compliance. Constitutional and statutory Subsequently, it appeared that it requirements . was only Sereno who was not able to substantially comply with the SALN Failure to file a truthful, complete requirement, and instead of and accurate SALN would likewise complying, Sereno wrote a letter amount to dishonesty if the same is containing justifications why she attended by malicious intent to should no longer be required to file conceal the truth or to make false the SALNs: that she resigned from statements. The suspicious U.P. in 2006 and then resumed circumstances include: 1996 SALN government service only in 2009, being accomplished only in 1998; thus her government service is not 1998 SALN only filed in 2003; 1997 continuous; that her government SALN only notarized in 1993; 2004- records are more than 15 years old 2006 SALNs were not filed which and thus infeasible to retrieve; and were the years when she received that U.P. cleared her of all academic the bulk of her fees from PIATCO and administrative responsibilities cases, 2006 SALN was later on and charges. intended to be for 2010, gross amount from PIATCO cases were not These justifications, however, did reflected, suspicious increase of not obliterate the simple fact that P2,700,000 in personal properties Sereno submitted only 3 SALNs to were seen in her first five months as the JBC in her 20-year service in Associate Justice. It is therefore U.P., and that there was nary an clear as day that Sereno failed not attempt on Sereno’s part to comply. only in complying with the physical Moreover, Sereno curiously failed to act of filing, but also committed mention that she did not file several dishonesty betraying her lack of SALNs during the course of her integrity, honesty and probity. The employment in U.P. Such failure to Court does not hesitate to impose disclose a material fact and the the supreme penalty of dismissal concealment thereof from the JBC against public officials whose SALNs betrays any claim of integrity were found to have contained especially from a Member of the discrepancies, inconsistencies and Supreme Court. [yourlawyersays] non-disclosures. Indubitably, Sereno not only failed Anent the twelfth issue: Sereno to substantially comply with the failed to submit the required SALNs submission of the SALNs but there as to qualify for nomination was no compliance at all. pursuant to the JBC rules. Dishonesty is classified as a grave offense the penalty of which is The JBC required the submission of dismissal from the service at the at least ten SALNs from those first infraction. A person aspiring to applicants who are incumbent public office must observe honesty, candor and faithful compliance with means that her integrity was not the law. Nothing less is expected. established at the time of her Dishonesty is a malevolent act that application puts serious doubt upon one’s ability to perform his duties with the The requirement to submit SALNs is integrity and uprightness demanded made more emphatic when the of a public officer or employee. For applicant is eyeing the position of these reasons, the JBC should no Chief Justice. On the June 4, 2012, longer have considered Sereno for JBC En Banc meeting, Senator interview. Escudero proposed the addition of the requirement of SALN in order for Moreover, the fact that Sereno had the next Chief Justice to avoid what no permit to engage in private CJ Corona had gone through. practice while in UP, her false Further, the failure to submit the representations that she was in required SALNs means that the JBC private practice after resigning from and the public are divested of the UP when in fact she was counsel for opportunity to consider the the government, her false claims applicant’s fitness or propensity to that the clearance from UP HRDO is commit corruption or dishonesty. In proof of her compliance with SALNs Sereno’s case, for example, the requirement, her commission of tax waiver of the confidentiality of bank fraud for failure to truthfully declare deposits would be practically her income in her ITRs for the years useless for the years that she failed 2007-2009, procured a brand new to submit her SALN since the JBC Toyota Land Cruiser worth at least cannot verify whether the same P5,000,000, caused the hiring of matches the entries indicated in the Ms. Macasaet without requisite SALN. public bidding, misused P3,000,000 of government funds for hotel Anent the fourteenth issue: accommodation at Shangri-La Sereno’s ineligibility for lack of Boracay as the venue of the 3rd proven integrity cannot be cured by ASEAN Chief Justices meeting, her nomination and subsequent issued a TRO in Coalition of appointment as Chief Justice. Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines v. COMELEC contrary to Well-settled is the rule that the Supreme Court’s internal rules, qualifications for public office must manipulated the disposition of the be possessed at the time of DOJ request to transfer the venue of appointment and assumption of the Maute cases outside of office and also during the officer’s Mindanao, ignored rulings of the entire tenure as a continuing Supreme Court with respect to the requirement. The voidance of the grant of survivorship benefits which JBC nomination as a necessary caused undue delay to the release of consequence of the Court’s finding survivorship benefits to spouses of that Sereno is ineligible, in the first deceased judges and Justices, place, to be a candidate for the manipulated the processes of the position of Chief Justice and to be JBC to exclude then SolGen, now AJ nominated for said position follows Francis Jardeleza, by using highly as a matter of course. The Court has confidential document involving ample jurisdiction to do so without national security against the latter the necessity of impleading the JBC among others, all belie the fact that as the Court can take judicial notice Sereno has integrity. of the explanations from the JBC members and the OEO. he Court, in Anent the thirteenth issue: a quo warranto proceeding, Sereno’s failure to submit to the maintains the power to issue such JBC her SALNs for several years further judgment determining the respective rights in and to the public office, position or franchise of all the parties to the action as justice WHEREFORE, the Petition for Quo requires. Warranto is GRANTED.
Neither will the President’s act of Sereno is found DISQUALIFIED
appointment cause to qualify from and is hereby adjudged Sereno. Although the JBC is an GUILTY of UNLAWFULLY HOLDING office constitutionally created, the and EXERCISING the OFFICE OF participation of the President in the THE CHIEF JUSTICE. Accordingly, selection and nomination process is Sereno is OUSTED and EXCLUDED evident from the composition of the therefrom. JBC itself. The position of the Chief Justice of An appointment is essentially within the Supreme Court is declared the discretionary power of vacant and the Judicial and Bar whomsoever it is vested, subject to Council is directed to commence the the only condition that the application and nomination process. appointee should possess the qualifications required by law. While This Decision is immediately the Court surrenders discretionary executory without need of further appointing power to the President, action from the Court. the exercise of such discretion is subject to the non-negotiable Sereno is ordered to SHOW CAUSE requirements that the appointee is within ten (10) days from receipt qualified and all other legal hereof why she should not be requirements are satisfied, in the sanctioned for violating the Code of absence of which, the appointment Professional Responsibility and the is susceptible to attack. Code of Judicial Conduct for transgressing the sub judice rule Anent the fifteenth issue: Sereno and for casting aspersions and ill is a de facto officer removable motives to the Members of the through quo warranto Supreme Court.
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. [yourlawyersays]