MODULE 3 NOTES:
Prepared by: Joannah V. Salamat
REPUBLIC OF THE PH vs SERENO
FACTS:
SALN (Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net
Worth) for the years 1985, 1990, 1991, 1993,
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2002
Sereno filed incomplete SALNs
 Central Records Division showed that
there was no SALN during 1999-2009.
 SALN dated December 1998 was
subscribed only in August 2003
 No SALN from 2003-2009
 SALN dated December 2009 was filed on
2012
 SALN submitted during 2006 has no
stamp and was signed on 2010
 Only filed 11 SALNs out of the twenty
years in UP
Requirements for Chief Justice Position (for
those in government service)
1. All previous SALNs up to December 2011
2. Waiver in favor of the JBC of the
confidentiality of local and foreign bank
accounts under the Bank Secrecy law
and foreign currency deposits act
Sereno’s Letter
 Became a full-time private practitioner
as a professor in UP Law
 Impossible to recover files that are more
than 15 years-old
 Given a clearance by UP of all
academic/administrative
responsibilities, money, and property
accountabilities and from administrative
charges as of June 2006
 Said clearance may be taken as an
assurance that SALN requirement has
been met
 Service in government not continuous,
thus, submitted SALNs only from end of
2009 up to December 2011
*The letter was not examined by the JBC regular
members nor was it deliberated upon by the JBC
en banc or the ExeCom*
 Atty. Pascual prepared a report stating
that she had complete requirements.
Pascual mentioned the infeasibility
argument of Sereno.
 Sereno was appointed as Chief Justice by
then President Aquino on August 2012
 On August 2017, Atty. Gadon filed an
impeachment complaint for Sereno’s
violating the constitution, corruption,
high crimes, and betrayal of public trust.
Gadon mentioned the failed
declarations of SALNs.
 Then ex-officio chairman Justice Peralta
claimed that he was not aware of the
incomplete SALNs
 House committee requested for an
investigation of the JBC relative to the
nomination of respondent Chief Justice
 Mallari Requested the OSG to initiate
quo warranto proceeding
Petition for quo warranto
Quo Warranto
 Questions the validity of an appointment
Impeachment
 Accusation of committing culpable
violation of the Constitution and
betrayal of public trust
OSG claims
 Petition is seasonably filed within the
period under Section 11, Rule 66, of the
Rules of Court

 There is an imprescriptible right to bring
a quo warranto petition under the
maxim nullum tempus occurit regi (no
time or place affects the king)
 Sereno did not show that she is a person
of integrity by her failure to submit all of
her SALNs
 Failure to submit SALNs disqualifies her
from the outset
Sereno’s Defense
 Impeachment is the proper procedure as
the Constitution states
 “may be removed from office” creates
an exclusive category of public officers
who can be removed only by
impeachment
 Quo warranto would be filed before the
RTC, thus, a judge of a lower court would
exercise disciplinary power and
administrative power over an official
much higher in rank
o this violates Sections 6 and 11
Article VIII of the constitution
 present petition is time-barred because
the rule says it must be filed from the
cause of ouster and not the discovery of
the disqualification
 assuming that it can be counted from the
discovery of disq. It would still be time-
barred because discovery would have
been done through UP, who is required
to submit a list of those who failed to
submit SALN
 as a public officer she enjoys the
presumption that her appointment to
office was regular
 the Republic failed to overcome this
presumption because of the UP HRDO
certifications clearing her of
administrative responsibilities and
charges and certification from the
Ombudsman
 for periods she was on official leave
without pay, she was not required to file
a SALN
 failure to submit SALNs does not have a
bearing on integrity
 SALN was only an additional
requirement
 Not a ground for disqualification unless
a subject of pending criminal case or
previous case involving non submission
of SALNs
 JBC was aware of incomplete SALNs and
they never questioned it
 Question of integrity is a political
question that the JBC may only answer
Republic’s answer
 Seeks ouster not because of an
impeachable offense, but Sereno’s
ineligibility to hold position
 “may be removed from office”
means members may be removed
through other modes than
impeachment
 Section 13 of A.M no. 10-4-20-SC
created the Committee on Ethics
and Ethical Standards who can
investigate complaints involving
graft and corruption and ethical
violations against members of the
SC
 They are not time-barred. The 1-
year requirement is for those who
claim rights to a public office and
not the state
 Cannot be notified of the failed
SALN submission because it is not
obligated to monitor compliance of
gov employees other than its own
 SALNs are not published, thus, it
cannot know of failed SALN
submission
 Unique circumstance should make
the court apply rule of 1-year period
liberally
  SC can determine respondent’s
qualifications and eligibility to hold
the position of chief justice
 Not a political question because
such issue may be resolved through
the interpretation of the provisions
of the Constitution, laws, JBC rules,
and canons of judicial ethics
 Claim of infeasibility implies that
SALNs were filed when
certifications from UP and
Ombudsman say otherwise
 Failure to notify JBC shows lack of
integrity
 Presumption of regularity only
applies to official acts and not acts
of officials
 Filing of SALN is not an official duty
 Presumption was disputed through
UP and Ombudsman certifications
Republic’s Memorandum
 Good faith cannot be used as defense
 R.A. 3019 and R.A. 6713 are special laws
and governed by mallum prohibitum
(malice is immaterial)
 Did not dispute evidence of failed SALN
submission
 Doblada ruling cannot be used as
precedent
 Doblada centers on unexplained wealth
 Doblada did not involve issues on
qualifications
Sereno’s Memorandum
 Impeachment prevents harassment
suits. Harassment suits prevent them
from performing their functions, which
are vital for gov operation
 Cases cited by the Republic erroneously
lumped together impeachable officers
o Pres and VP are elected officials
and not appointive officials
 Funa case did not say that impeachable
officer may be ousted through quo
warranto
 Political question doctrine is not
confined to the Pres or congress. It
extends to other gov departments or
officers exercising discretionary powers
such as JBC
 Appointment can no longer be
questioned because there are no
challenges of her nomination through
grave abuse of discretion
 Still time barred because the nullum
maxim was only mentioned in Agcaoili in
passing
 Agcaoili states that prescription applies
against the state if the rule or stature
clearly provides
 11 SALN found shows filing and not non-
filing
 certifications of UP HRDO and
Ombudsman are incomplete and
unreliable
 UP HRDO has cleared her of admin
responsibilities and admin charges thrice
 Temporary appointment during 1986-
1991 did not compel her to file SALN
 Missing SALNs is not equal to non-filing
 UP is only required to keep SALN for 10
years
 Infeasibility argument was raised
because of short time period given
 Not required by law to keep SALN
 2009 SALN was revised in 2012 to more
accurately reflect the acquisition of
certain assets
 2010 submission was dated as 2006
because of the use of a downloadable
form
 omission of husband’s signature on 2011
SALN is immaterial because the
signature of spouse was only required in
2013
 failed to include jewelry in 1990 SALN in
good faith. Indicated jewelry in
subsequent SALNs
 IRR of R.A. 6713 requires that a reporting
individual must be informed and
provided an opportunity to take
 necessary corrective action should there
be error in SALN
Sereno’s Memorandum (Supplement)
 Raises 2 issues
o Alleged tax fraud
o Forum shopping of the Republic
Forum Shopping is when a party attempts to
have his action tried in a particular court he feels
will receive the most favorable judgement or
verdict.
Alleged Tax Fraud
 Republic alleges tax fraud in PIATCO
 Only raised in its memorandum
 BIR deputy commissioner Guballa’s
summary and presentation attached to
the memorandum were incomplete
 Guballa himself declared all income legal
fees were substantially declared BUT
with certain discrepancies
Forum Shopping
 There was an impeachment case already
pending
 Elements of FS in case at hand
o Identity of parties between quo
warranto action and
impeachment case. House
Committee on Justice is also part
of the Government
o Identity of causes in the quo
warranto case are the same in
the Articles of Impeachment
o Identity in the relief sought as
both quo warranto and
impeachment wants her
removal
Motions for Inhibition
Justice Bersamin
 Called her a dictator
 Resentment because of the supposed
withdrawal to recommend nominees to
vancant position in the Judiciary
Justice Peralta
 Then chairperson of the JBC.
 Would have personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts
Justice Jardaleza
 Ill will because Sereno challenged his
integrity during the nomination process
for the Associate Justice position
Justice Tijam
 Said to Manila Times that her refusal to
ignore and participate in the
impeachment process is a sign of guilt
Justices Tijam and Bersamin
 Wore a touch of red during red Monday
during which judges and court members
reportedly they called her to resign
Justice De Castro
 Testified under oath during the House
Committee on Justice that Sereno
should be disqualified because of
missing SALNs
ISSUES
1. WoN quo warranto may be a mode of
removal of an impeachable officer
2. WoN the petition outright dismissable
because of perscription
3. WoN Sereno is eligible for the position of
Chief Justice
4. WoN the determiniation of a candidate’s
eligibility is the sole function of the JBC.
WoN this is a political question
5. WoN the failure to file and submit SALNs
voids the nomination and appointment
as Chief Justice
6. WoN the ineligibility was cured by the
nomination of the JBC and appointment
of the president
7. WoN Sereno is a de jure or de facto
officer
RULING

The Court has Jurisdiction over the instant
petition for Quo Warranto
 Sec. 7, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court
provides that the venue for an action for
quo warranto when commenced by the
Solicitor General, are the RTC in Manila,
the CA, or the SC.
 Direct invocation the SC to issue such
writ is allowed when there are especial
and important reasons clearly,
specifically set out in the petition.
No Forum Shopping
 Means a matter already judged
Requires the ff:
1. Former judgement is final
2. Judgement was made by a court
having jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties
3. Judgement or an order on the merits
4. Similar identity of parties, subject
matter and cause of action for both
cases
Cause of Action
 Fact or facts which give a person a right
to judicial relief

Ways to commit Forum Shopping Quo Warranto Impeachment

 Filing multiple cases based on the same Usurping, intruding, Commission of an
CoA and with the same prayer with: or unlawfully holding impeachable offense
1. the previous case not having been or exercising public
resolved yet (ground for dismissal is litis office
pendentia) Controversy is WoN Controversy is WoN
2. the previous case finally resolved respondent legally responded did
(ground for dismissal is res judicata) holds her position impeachable offenses
 Filing multiple cases based on the same
CoA with different prayers (ground for Impeachment presupposes that respondent
dismissal is either litis pendentia or res legally holds public office
judicata)
Difference in Relief

Litis Pendentia Quo Warranto Impeachment

 means pending suit
 refers to a situation where 2 actions are
pending between the same parties for
the same CoA, so that one of them
becomes unnecessary and vexatious
Requires the ff:
1. identity of parties representing the
same interests in both actions
2. Identity of rights asserted and reliefs
being founded on the same facts
3. identity with respect to the two
preceding particulars in the two
cases, such that any judgement to
the pending case would amount to
res judicata in the other case
Res Judicata
Adjudged to cease Removal from public
from holding a public office she is legally
office, she is ineligible holding
to hold
Impeachment proceeding is different from an
impeachment case. The impeachment
proceeding in the House Committee on Justice is
not the impeachment case proper.
Integrity
Rule 4 in JBC-009 Rules
Evidence of Integrity
 Certifications or testimonials from
reputable government officials and
NGOs
  Clearances from the NBI, police, and
other agencies required by council
Sec. 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution
 Shows that filing of SALN is a
constitutional requirement
 To promote transparency and
accountability
 To prevent enriching themselves
through unlawful means
Requirement of filing SALN is more exacting for
members of the judiciary
 “Honorable competent and independent
judiciary exists to administer justice and
promote unity of the country, stability of
the government, and the well-being of
people”
 Sereno withheld the presentation of her
missing SALNs before the Court.
 SALNs attached to Memorandum, save
for the 1989 SALN, where the same
SALNs priorly offered by the Republic
 Infeasibility defense debunked by failure
to submit recent SALNs from 2000-2006
Doblada Doctrine not applicable
 Doblada was able to provide contrary
proof to the failure to file allegations
 A letter from the head of personnel of
Branch 155 that the SALN exists and was
duly transmitted and received by the
OCA
 Sereno failed to support her allegation of
filing with substantial proof
Burden of proof lies on Respondent
 Through the Ombudsman’s certification
that all SALN, save for 1998, are not filed,
and the failure to show proof that her
SALNs exist, the State was able to
discharge Its own burden of proof
 Burden of evidence is now on the
respondent
 In Quo warranto proceedings the burden
rests on the respondent to show his right
to the office
 Respondent mush show a good legal title
and not merely a colorable one, for he
must rely on the strength of his own title
Burden of proof
 Rests upon the plaintiff who is required
to establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence
Burden of evidence
 Burden shifts on the defendant after
plaintiff shows burden of proof. Now,
Defendant has the burden to establish
his defense
Being on leave without pay does not exempt
respondent from filing her SALN
 Being on leave is not synonymous with
separation from government service
Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713 provides exceptions:
1. Those working in honorary capacity –
people who work for government
without service credit and without pay
2. Laborers – those who perform ordinary
manual labor
3. Casual or temporary worker
Respondent is not considered to work in an
honorary capacity
 She did not receive pay because she
was on leave and did not render service
 Although UP is not required to keep
SALN after a ten-year period, logically,
there must remain a certification that
attests the fact of filing.
UP HRDO Certification
 It was respondent’s duty to properly
accomplish the SALN
 At the time of respondent’s tenure at
UP, compliance rules were not in effect.
It took effect in 2006
  UP could not have performed
compliance duties alerting respondent
that she did not file her SALNs
Shortlisted by the JBC for the CJ position is not
proof that requirements were complied with
 JBC en banc did not deliberate her July
23, 2012 letter
Irregularities and Doubts on filed SALNs
1. Dec. 1996 SALN was accomplished and
notarized only on June 1998
2. Dec. 1998 SALN was filed in 2003
3. 1997-1999 & 2002 SALN were notarized
on August 2003
4. There were 2 SALNs for 1997
5. No SALNs for 2004-2006 where she
received bulk of her fees from PIATCO
cases
6. 2006 SALN was accomplished on 2010,
which was subsequently claimed to be
her 2010 SALN
7. 2009 SALN was not accomplished under
oath and was filed on 2012. SALN
indicared she was an Associate chief
justice when she was appointed only on
2010
8. 2006 and 2009 SALN did not reflect
PIATCO fees
9. Difference between 2002 -2009 SALN,
where her income increased by about
Php 14M was not shown in SALNs
10. Glaring difference between 2010 SALNs.
July SALN showed Php 9M as net worth
while December SALN showed Php
11.7M as net worth. Net worth
increased five months after she was
appointed associate justice
11. SALNs recovered by husband were not
stamped by UP HRDO
12. No indication from the stamped
certified photocopy whether the
original copies are on file
 Respondent was the only one in the
shortlist who did not comply with the
SALN requirements
Dishonest Acts by the Respondent
1. Had no permit from UP to engage in
private practice
2. Alleged that she was a full time private
practitioner after she resigned, but she
was a counsel by the government in the
PIATCO cases
3. Ministerial duty of UP (see UP HRDO
certification)
4. PDS shows that she was Deputy
Commissioner of the Commission on
Human Rights which was then
disclaimed by her during oral arguments
5. SALN claimed to be infeasible to
retrieve but OSG was able to retrieve
said SALNs
6. Two reasons for infeasibility: 1)
impossible because of age of
documents 2) impossible given the time
constraint
7. Claimed that other candidates did not
comply with the requirement, when it
was only she who did not comply
8. Committed tax fraud for undeclared
income
9. Procured Toyota land cruiser for Php5M
10. Hired Helen Macasaet without public
bidding. Macasaet received an
excessive compensation of Php11M
11. Misused at least Php3M of gov funds
for hotel accommodation at Shang
Boracay for the ASEAN CJ meeting
12. Created the Judiciary Decentralized
Office without being sanctioned by the
Court En Banc
13. Issued a TRO in Coalitition of
Associations of Senior Citizens in the
Philippines v. COMELEC contrary to SC
IRR and misrepresented TRO stating it
was issued upon the recommendation
of the members-in-charge
14. Manipulated the disposition of the DOJ
request to transfer venue of the Maute
case outside of Mindanao
15. Ignored rulings of the SC in the grant of
survivorship benefits. This caused
undue delay to the release of
 survivorship benefits to spouses of
deceased judges and Justices
16. Appointed Geraldine Econg as head of
the JDO and Brenda Mendoza as Chief
of the Philippine Mediation Center
Office without the approval of the court
en banc
17. Refused to appoint qualified applicants
to several high-ranking positions in the
SC
18. Ordered the dissemination of erroneous
information on what happened during
the SC deliberations accusing 4 judges
in their involvement in illegal drugs.
19. Undermined the co-equal power of the
executive department by ordering the
Exec. Secretary to file acses against
judges
20. Manipulated the processes of the JBC to
exclude associate justice Jardaleza by
using confidential docs involving
national security against him
21. Impaired the power of the president to
appoint assoc. justices by clustering the
nominees
22. Told the SC en banc that there were
justices who wanted to remove the
voting requisite of recommended
applicants to the SC
23. Manipulated processes of the JBC to
exclude Justice Peralta from the short-
list of nominees for the position of
Presiding Justice of the CA
24. Interfered with the investigation
conducted by the HOR on the misuse of
the tobacco funds in Ilocos Norte by
unilaterally preparing a joint statement
asking the HoR to reconsider its show
cause order against the justices of the
CA
25. Pressured then Presiding Justice of the
CA Assoc. Justice Reyes to sign the
statement
26. Undermined and disrespected her own
impeachment proceedings
Nomination and Appointment as SC do not
cure lack of integrity
 Failure to submit SALN is a clear violation
of the constitution
 Shortlist of nominees by the President
does not override the Constitutional
qualifications
 When the JBC mistakenly accepts and
nominates a person, the president
through his alter egos in the JBC,
commits the same mistake
Respondent is a de facto officer removable by
quo warranto
De Facto Judge
 One who exercises duties of judicial
office under the color of an appointment
or election
 Being a de facto officer, she never held
the status of an impeachable official
Defiance to the sub judice rule
Sub judice rule
 Restricts comments and disclosures
pertaining to the judicial proceedings in
order to avoid prejudging the issue,
influencing the court, or obstructing the
administration of justice
 Rationale:
o To be immune from extraneous
influence
o For the case to be decided upon
evidence produced in court
o For the determination of such
facts be uninfluenced by bias,
prejudice or sympathies
 Instead of answering the charges against
her, she opted to do a nationwide
campaign. In various media outlets, she
discussed the merits of the case as well
as talked about the bias of the justices
involved.
CONCLUSION
 Sereno is ineligible to hold office as CJ of
the SC due to lack of integrity for her
failure to file her SALNs.
 SALN is a requirement under the
Constitution
 Failure to comply with this requirement
means the person cannot hold office, or
if already in office, vacate the office.