G.R. No. 237428 - Republic vs. Sereno

Case Summary (G.R. No. 237428)

Jurisdiction over Quo Warranto against an Impeachable Officer

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over quo warranto petitions under Article VIII, Section 5(1), of the 1987 Constitution. The petitioner challenges the validity of Chief Justice Sereno’s appointment on the ground that she failed to comply with constitutional and legal requirements, specifically the filing and submission of Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs). The Solicitor General seeks her ouster not for impeachable offenses committed during office, but for her alleged ineligibility at the time of appointment due to failure to prove constitutional “integrity”.

The Court distinguished quo warranto from impeachment:

Impeachment is a political process to remove an official already de jure holding office for commission of impeachable offenses enumerated in the Constitution.
Quo warranto is a judicial proceeding questioning the legal right or title of a person to hold office, applicable when ineligibility or defect in appointment exists ab initio.

The Court held that quo warranto may be invoked against an impeachable officer when the defect or ineligibility relates to qualifications existing prior to or at the time of appointment or election. Removal of a sitting impeachable officer for impeachable offenses is still only possible through impeachment.

Petition is Not Time-Barred

Section 11, Rule 66, states an action for quo warranto must be commenced within one year from the cause of ouster or when the petitioner’s right to the office arose. The Court ruled that this limitation period does not apply to the State, consistent with the maxim nullum tempus occurit regi (“time does not run against the King”) and jurisprudence that statutes of limitation generally do not bind the State when asserting public rights.

Moreover, the reckoning of prescription ordinarily runs from the time the defect or cause of ouster was discovered; here, the petition was filed after public revelations during House Committee impeachment proceedings, constituting timely cause.

Failure to File SALNs Constitutes Lack of Proven Integrity

A member of the Judiciary under Article VIII, Section 7(3) of the Constitution must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence. The Court evaluated the importance of SALN filing as integral to proof of integrity since the SALN is mandated by the Constitution and special laws with penal and administrative sanctions for non-compliance.

Sereno admitted she did not file her SALNs for several years (1986–2006) while in government service as UP faculty. Records from the UP Human Resources Development Office and the Office of the Ombudsman certify the absence of SALNs for years prior to her Supreme Court appointment. The JBC required submission of all previous SALNs for applicants from government service in the 2012 Chief Justice race, with failure to comply being grounds for disqualification.

Although she submitted only SALNs for 2009, 2010, and 2011, her letter explaining the non-submission of earlier SALNs was not brought to the attention of all JBC members during deliberations. Thus, the JBC was prevented from making a fully informed decision on substantial compliance. The Court concluded that Sereno failed to prove her compliance with the SALN requirement and accordingly failed to prove the constitutional qualification of integrity.

JBC’s Supervisory Role and Discretion

The Court is empowered to supervise the JBC, ensuring it follows its own rules. However, the JBC enjoys discretion in evaluating subjective qualifications such as integrity, and the judicial power does not extend to supplanting the JBC’s determinations absent grave abuse of discretion.

The Court noted the JBC’s rules on integrity (JBC-009 and its 2016 revision) rely on a comprehensive evaluation of the applicant’s reputation and character based on certifications and background checks and do not mandate submission of SALNs as the sole or primary evidence of integrity.

The JBC had accepted Sereno’s partial submission plus explanation as substantial compliance. The Court found no evidence of grave abuse of discretion in the JBC’s conduct and ruled the nomination stands.

Distinction between Removal and Qualification

The Court emphasized that failure to file SALNs may constitute an administrative or criminal offense punishable by law and may justify removal through impeachment if proven. However, failure to submit SALNs or failure to prove integrity at the time of appointment directly affects eligibility and is proper grounds for a quo warranto proceeding.

Motions for Inhibition Denied

Sereno filed motions to inhibit six Justices for alleged partiality. The Court held the motions lack substantial proof, and the facts cited do not amount to personal bias requiring disqualification under the rules on recusals. The Justices’ participation in impeachment hearings as resource persons, or their public statement

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 237428)

Background and Context of the Case

The case arises from a quo warranto petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines (via the Office of the Solicitor General) to declare Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (respondent) disqualified to hold the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for failure to submit complete and truthful Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs).
Respondent was a faculty member of the University of the Philippines College of Law (UP) from 1986 to June 1, 2006 and concurrently employed as legal counsel of the Republic in international arbitrations from 2003 to 2009.
Respondent submitted SALNs sporadically during her UP tenure, with several years’ SALNs unfiled or unavailable, and only three SALNs submitted to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) in connection with her 2012 application to Chief Justice.
The JBC required all previous SALNs (up to 2011) from government applicants for the Chief Justice post following the impeachment of former Chief Justice Renato Corona for inaccurate SALNs.
During the 2012 JBC deliberations, respondent failed to submit SALNs for approximately ten years (1986-2006), but this was not properly disclosed or deliberated upon by the full body.
Respondent was nonetheless included in the shortlist of nominees recommended by the JBC to the President and was appointed Chief Justice on August 24, 2012.
An impeachment complaint was filed against respondent in the House of Representatives in 2017 citing similar grounds, including failure to file truthful SALNs.
The instant quo warranto petition followed, seeking nullification of the appointment on grounds of ineligibility for failing to prove “integrity” via complete SALN submission.

Integrity as a Constitutional Qualification for Judiciary Members

The 1987 Constitution mandates that a Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.
Integrity is not simply a moral or philosophical concept but a demonstrated adherence to honesty and ethical standards reflected inter alia in compliance with laws such as SALN filing.
Respondent’s failure to file required SALNs during her UP employment violates constitutional, statutory, and ethical standards, casting severe doubt on her proven integrity.
The Constitution requires continuous compliance with these standards from appointment through the tenure of office.
Integrity, competence, probity, and independence are essential to maintain public trust and confidence in the Judiciary.

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Over Quo Warranto Petitions Against Impeachable Officers

Article VIII, Section 5(1) of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over petitions for quo warranto.
Article XI, Section 2 allows removal of impeachable officers (including Supreme Court justices) only by impeachment for enumerated offenses; however, does not explicitly forbid other modes for invalidity of appointments or qualifications.
Quo warranto is a judicial remedy to directly challenge the right or title to public office and determine if the person unlawfully holds the position.
Impeachment is political in nature and remedial for misconduct during tenure but presupposes valid holding of office.
Quo warranto may be filed independently and concurrently with impeachment to challenge eligibility or validity of appointment.
The Solicitor General, not a private individual, is the proper party to institute quo warranto petition against usurpation of public office, and such action is imprescriptible as prescription does not lie against the State.
The petition is properly filed within one year from discovery of respondent’s failure to file SALNs, which was not known until impeachment hearings and related investigations.
The case involves a matter of transcendental importance warranting direct Supreme Court exercise of original jurisdiction.

The Judicial and Bar Council’s Role and Supervisory Authority

The JBC is a constitutional body under the supervision (not control) of the Supreme Court assign