Delgado, Rod Bendolf F. 16 Aug.

2018
Introduction to Law JD101

G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989

Ferdinand E. Marcos vs. Hon. Raul Manglapus

Facts:
After former President Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency in the
year 1986, he was forced into exile, together with his family, in Hawaii, USA. In his
deathbed, he sought to return to the Philippines with the desire to die in his homeland.
He requested the court to order the respondents to issue their travel documents and
enjoin the petition of President Aquino’s decision to bar him and his family’s return to
the Philippines. According to the petitioners, President Corazon Aquino acted outside
her jurisdiction, questioning her power to prohibit their return to the Philippines.

Issue:
Whether or not President Corazon Aquino, in the exercise of her powers granted by the
Constitution, possess the power to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines?

Ruling:
Yes. The separation of power dictates that each department (Executive, Legislative, and
Judiciary) has exclusive powers. In Section 1, Article VII (7) of the 1987 Constitution, it
states that “The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.”
This, however, does not define what the “executive power” includes or is limited to. The
same article may include the tasks and exercises of certain powers of the President
(Article VII, Sections 14-23), this is does not restrict the President to only these
specified powers enumerated in the Constitution. One of the President’s obligation that
is not stated in the Constitution, is to protect the people, protect their welfare and
advance national interest. Considering the history of the Marcoses and their followers’
efforts to disrupt the country resulting to serious consequences in our economy (such
as: Accumulation of foreign debt, plunder of nation, etc), their return at that time would
only instigate more violence and disorder. In that light, the case calls for those unstated
residual powers of the President, especially the power to protect general welfare. The
Supreme Court held that the President did not act arbitrarily and that there are factual
bases in her decision. Therefore, the petition of Marcos was dismissed.
Delgado, Rod Bendolf F. 16 Aug. 2018
Introduction to Law JD101

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

Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida vs. Maria
Lourdes P. A. Sereno

Facts:
Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno was employed as a faculty member from 1986 to 2006 at
the University of the Philippines-College of Law. Simultaneously, from October 2003 to
2006, she was also employed as legal counsel of the Republic in two international
arbitrations and a Deputy Commissioner of the Commissioner on Human Rights.

Sereno was then appointed as Associate Justice on August 2010. On 2012, JBC
(Judicial and Bar Council) declared that the position of Chief Justice was vacant,
applicants were then directed to submit certain documents, among which are SALNs;
for those in the government: all previous SALNs (up to 31 December 2011) , and for
those from private sector: SALN as of 31 December 2011. The JBC further instructed
that “applicants with incomplete or out-of-date documentary requirements will not be
interviewed or considered for nomination”. According to the minutes of the JBC
deliberation held on July 20, 2012, that the Executive Officer informed the council that
Sereno did not submit her SALNs from 1986 to 2006 (a period of 10 years). Justice
Sereno then stated that since she resigned from UP as a private practitioner, her
requirements would that be for a private sector; submitting only three (3) SALNs. On
August 24, 2012, Sereno was appointed Chief Justice by President Aquino III.

On August 2017, Atty. Larry Gadon filed an impeachment complaint against Maria
Lourder Serno, claiming that Sereno failed to make truthful declarations regarding her
SALNs. The Human Resuorces Development Office of UP (UP HRDO) verified that
there were no records of Sereno filing for permission to engage in limited practice of
profession. In her twenty (20) years of employment, only nine (9) Statements of Assets,
Liabilities, and Net worth (SALN) were found in the records of UP HRDO, with eleven
(11) SALNs missing.

On February 2018, Atty. Eligio Mallari, representing the Republic, wrote to the OSG to
initiate a quo warranto proceeding against Sereno. The OSG then filed a petition for the
issuance of the extraordinary writ of quo warranto to declare Sereno’s ineligibility as the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and to oust and altogether exclude Sereno
therefrom.
Issue:
Whether the Court can assume jurisdiction and give due course to the instnt petition for
quo warranto against Sereno who is an impeachable officer.

Ruling:
Yes. A quo warranto is allowed against impeachable officials and the Supreme Court
has Jurisdiction. According to Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution, it states that the
SC has original jurisdiction over petitions for quo warranto, although the SC has
concurrent jurisdiction with the CA and RTC to issue the extraordinary writs. Granting
this petition, however, is of transcendental importance. Considering that the
qualification, eligibility, and appointment of an incumbent Chief Justice is being
scrutinized. Therefore, in this case, direct resort to SC is justified.