Republic of The Philippines V.

Maria Lourdes Sereno

Gr no. 237428; May 11, 2018
Tijam, J.:

Facts: The solicitor General Filed a petition for extraordinary writ of

quo warranto against Former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno,
based on the grounds that out of the 25 Statement of Assets and
Liabilities Networks (SALNs) when she worked from the government
from 1985, only 11 SALNs were submitted to the JBC when she was
appointed as chief Justice.

Herein respondent was a law professor for UP from 1986-2006

and was the legal counsel for the republic of the Philippines from 2003
– 2009. In 2010 the respondent was appointed by President Benigno
Aquino III as an associate justice of the supreme court and in 2012 a
position for the chief justice had opened up where the respondent was
nominated. Subsequently, when the position was opened, the Judicial
and Bar Council required all candidates to submit all of their SALNs up
to December of 2011. And made it clear that those which have
incomplete SALNs will not be interviewed and considered for
nomination.

A deliberation was made for those which did not have complete
SALN requirements and an extension was granted for the submission
of the same. Subsequently, the respondent by virtue of OSRN required
the former to submit her SALN from 1995-1999 in which she was still
employed at UP at the time. In a letter, for her reply to said
requirement, “it is reasonable to consider it infeasible to retrieve all
those files.” She also assured OSRN that UP has cleared her of all
responsibilities, accountabilities, and administrative charges in 2006.
Lastly, She stated that her government service was not continuous
has she having taken a break from the same between 2006 and 2010.

Subsequently, said letter was not deliberated by the JBC or the

execom of the same and despite having only submitted 3 SALNs, her
status on the said nomination is that with “complete requirements.”
Thereafter, she was appointed by President Aquino in 2012 as the
chief justice, and thereafter an impeachment suit 5 years later was
issued by atty, Larry Gadon on the grounds of her deficiency in her
SALNs. In February of 2018 a quo warranto proceeding was initiated.

In the Contention of the solicitor general regarding quo warranto,

he states that “ the Quo warranto is a proper proceeding, the one year
bar with respect to the impeachment proceeding does not apply to the
government. The respondent had not proven her integrity to uphold the
position and thus is not fit to hold the position of chief justice.

In the contention of the Respondent, She argues that by virtue of

the constitution, she may only be removed from her office through
impeachment. She also argues that in times that she is not on the
government’s payroll, she is not required to submit her SALNs.

Issue: Whether or not the Court has Jurisdiction of Quo Warranto

against an impeachable officer and during the time of an impeachment
proceeding.

Held: Yes.

Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that the

supreme court has original jurisdiction in quo warranto proceedings.
The Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts also have
concurrent jurisdiction of the Same. In cases where the quo warranto
is commenced by the solicitor General, the proceeding may be done
directly to the Supreme court.

With respect to the argument that only impeachment may be

done to remove an impeachable officer from office, the supreme court
emphasized the difference between an impeachment and quo warranto
are as to (1) jurisdiction (2) grounds, (3) applicable rules pertaining to
initiation, filing and dismissal, and (4) limitations. Even the causes of
action in quo warranto and impeachment are distinct and in no way
overlap one another. In the former, the causes of action are the
usurpation, intruding, or unlawfully holding or exercising of a public
office, while in impeachment, it is the commission of an impeachable
offense as provided by the Constitution. Furthermore, their legal
effects are also distinct, In quo warranto, what the proceeding seeks
is to remove an officer which is not eligible or qualified to hold a
position, while in impeachment, the impeachable officer is a de jure
officer and qualified to hold the same and is therefore removed for the
violation he has committed.

Impeachment is not an exclusive mode to remove an

impeachable officer. the language of Section 2, Article XI of the
Constitution does not foreclose a quo warranto action against
impeachable officers: “[T]he Members of the Supreme Court, the
Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may
be removed from office ...” The provision uses the permissive term
“may” which, in statutory construction, denotes discretion and cannot
be construed as having a mandatory effect. An option to remove by
impeachment admits of an alternative mode of effecting the removal.
Hence; Quo warranto is a valid ground.