Solicitor General Jose C.

Calida filed a Petition for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of quo
warranto to declare void Respondent Sereno’s appointment as Chief Justice. Respondent served
as a member of the faculty of the UP College of Law for 20 years, and has worked as a legal
counsel for various government agencies. However, Respondent Sereno’s declaration of
Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth available on record were only 11 out of 25 that
should have been filed by the Respondent.
The former President of the Philippines, Benigno Aquino III, appointed the Respondent
as an Associate Justice in August 2010.
JBC announced the applications and nominations for the position of the Chief Justice,
requiring all previous SALns up to 31 December 2011 be submitted, even stating that
“Applicants with incomplete or out-of-date documentary requirements will not be interviewed or
considered for nomination.”
Several other candidates including the Respondents has filed incomplete documents, thus
prompting the JBC to extend the deadline for the documentary requirements.
Respondent replied through a letter to the OSRN that since 15 years has passed, her
government records in UP is infeasible to retrieve, and stated that UP has cleared her of all
responsibilities, accountabilities and administrative charges in 2006. She emphasized that her
government service was not continuous, since she had a break in 2006 and came back in 2010
when she was appointed as Associate Justice.
JBC was not examined and deliberated by the JBC. Despite having incomplete
documents, her application was annotated with “Complete requirements” noting her letter that
her SALns were infeasible to retrieve. She was then appointed by the former President Benigno
Aquiono III on 25 August 2012.
Five years later, an impeachment complaint was filed by Atty. Lary Gadon in the House
of Representatives, the complaint alleged Respondent’s failure to submit the required SALns.
Atty. Elgio Mallari requested to the OSG a quo warranto proceeding against the Respondent.

Issues:
1. Whether the Court can assume jurisdiction and give due course to the instant petition for quo
warranto against Respondent who is an impeachable officer and against whom an impeachment
complaint has already been filed with the House of Representatives.
2. Assuming quo warranto is a proper remedy, whether said remedy already prescribed.
3. Whether Respondent’s failure to submit copies of her SALN to the JBC meant that she failed
“to pass the test of integrity.”
4. Whether the Court’s power of supervision gives it the authority to interfere with the JBC’s
discretion in performing its constitutional mandate.
5. Whether Respondent must be held accountable for her actions in relation to the present case.