Case Digest (A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
This administrative proceeding arose from A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC, En Banc, decided on March 25, 2019 under the 1987 Constitution. The Respondent, then Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, was the subject of a Show Cause Order following the Supreme Court’s May 11, 2018 decision in Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida v. Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (G.R. No. 237428). On August 30, 2017, an impeachment complaint for constitutional violation and corruption was filed before the House Committee on Justice. Thereafter, the Office of the Solicitor General instituted a quo warranto petition questioning Sereno’s eligibility as Chief Justice. While these proceedings were pending, Sereno delivered speeches to students and faculty, granted television interviews, and participated in public rallies, repeatedly discussing the merits of her case, impugning members of Congress and her Supreme Court colleagues. The Court found that these extrajudicial stat Case Digest (A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Factual and Procedural Antecedents
- On August 30, 2017, the House Committee on Justice received an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno for culpable violation of the Constitution, corruption, high crimes, and betrayal of public trust.
- While the complaint was pending, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a quo warranto petition with the Supreme Court questioning Sereno’s eligibility as Chief Justice.
- Respondent’s Conduct and Show-Cause Order
- During and after these proceedings, Sereno delivered public speeches, gave televised interviews, and spoke at university forums discussing the merits of the pending cases, criticizing Members of Congress and this Court, and predicting dictatorship if the quo warranto succeeded.
- On May 11, 2018, the Court en banc ordered Sereno to show cause for violating the sub judice rule and transgressing the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the New Code of Judicial Conduct (NCJC).
- On June 13, 2018, Sereno filed a Verified Compliance and a Motion for Inhibition, arguing (a) she was a party-litigant not subject to CPR/NCJC standards for judges; (b) her statements posed no “clear and present danger” to justice; (c) she was upholding constitutional duties; and (d) she faced personal attacks and was denied due process.
Issues:
- Whether respondent may be held administratively liable for her public statements and actions concerning the quo warranto petition during its pendency.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)