LAGMAY, KRIZTEL MARA G.

23 JUNE 2018

2013058174 1G
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

A Critique Paper on the Case of Republic vs. Sereno G.R. No. 237428

A person is not given integrity. It is a result from relentless pursuit of honesty. In

simple words, integrity is the quality of being honest and fair in all things. It is not a new
concept in the vocation of administering and dispensing justice.1

A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity,

probity, and independence.2 More importantly, the person applying for the position of
Chief Justice must be the best exemplar of these characters since it is the highest post
in the Judicial Department which he is applying for. No one is above the law. Everyone
is bound to follow it, even the highest officials in our country. If one violates the law, he
must be punished.

When one questions the truthfulness of a provision of the Constitution, one

questions the wholeness of the latter. It is all or nothing. Either we descend into anarchy
or firmly believe in the Constitution fully. One cannot sustain only parts of it and
disregard the rest. One cannot live the Constitution and disrespects the leaders’
mandates at the same time. There is neither right nor wrong in the Constitution as much
as it is biased with neither extreme side.

Brief Background of the Case

Maria Lourdes Sereno was a respectable professor in the University of the

Philippines-College of Law from 1986 to 2006. She was also concurrently employed as
legal counsel of the Republic in two international arbitrations namely: (a) PIATCO v.
Republic of the Philippines and MIAA; and (b) Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services
Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines until 2009. Sereno submitted her application
for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in July 2010. According to
her, the Judicial and Bar Council considered her nomination for the position of
Associate Justice as that of a private practitioner and not as a government employee.
She was appointed as an Associate Justice by then President Benigno Aquino III.

The position of the Chief Justice was declared vacant in 2012, and Sereno was
one of the nominees thereof. Upon the deliberation of the JBC in its Special En Banc
Meeting, the JBC found that Sereno only submitted three (3) SALNs. Her name was

1
Republic vs. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428 (2018)
2
Section 7(3), Article 8, 1987 Philippine Constitution
included in the shortlist that the JBC voted and transmitted to the President for the
appointment of the next Chief Justice. Luckily, Sereno was appointed as Chief Justice
by then President Benigno Aquino III in 2012.

An impeachment complaint was filed by Atty. Lary Gadon against Sereno for
culpable violation of the Constitution, corruption, high crimes, and betrayal of public
trust. This is because Atty. Gadon alleged that Sereno failed to make truthful
declarations in her SALNs which make her appointment as Chief Justice void ab initio.
The Republic, through the Solicitor General, filed the instant petition of quo warranto
against Sereno, challenging the validity of her appointment as Chief Justice.

Issues

The Court identified four (4) issues in the case: (a) whether the Court can
assume jurisdiction and give due course to the instant petition for quo warranto against
the Sereno who is an impeachable officer and against whom an impeachment complaint
has already been filed with the House of Representatives; (b) whether the petition is out
rightly dismissible on the ground of prescription; (c) whether Sereno is eligible for the
position of Chief Justice and possesses „integrity‟; and (d) whether Sereno is a de jure
or de facto officer.

Critique
Whether the Court can assume jurisdiction and give due course to the instant
petition for quo warranto
The Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall have the power to
exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and
habeas corpus. 3 Sereno, being the Chief Justice at that time, was filed with a petition
for quo warranto and that she will be ousted as Chief Justice.

Quo warranto, Latin for “by what authority”, is a special form of legal action used
to resolve a dispute over whether or not a specific person has the legal right to hold the
public office that he or she occupies and not to evaluate the person‟s performance in
the office.4 In quo warranto proceedings referring to offices referring to offices filled by
election, what is to be determined is the eligibility of the candidates elected, while in quo
warranto proceedings referring to offices filled by appointment, what is determined is the
legality of the appointment.

Sereno, who is an impeachable official, is also an appointed official of the

government. Her appointment may be questioned and challenged anytime by anyone

3
Section 5, Article 8, 1987 Philippine Constitution
4
https://oag.ca.gov/opinions/quo-warranto
who has legal standing, like the Republic, represented by the Solicitor General. It is
without any doubt that the public concerns this kind of issue as it is a case of
transcendental importance. The Framers of the Constitution is clear as crystal in saying
that only the Supreme Court has the authority to handle such cases, as it is enshrined in
our Constitution.
Furthermore, members of the Judiciary, being an independent branch of the
government, are subject to the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court. 5 The
Court‟s exercise of its jurisdiction on the quo warranto proceeding against Sereno is not
a violation of the separation of powers of the three (3) branches of the government. The
Congress acts as an impeachment court for impeachment cases of impeachable
officials while the Court takes jurisdiction on quo warranto proceedings.

Even though there was a pending case of impeachment against Sereno, a quo
warranto proceeding may still be independently and simultaneously proceed with it as
they two have difference as to the jurisdiction, grounds, limitations, and applicable rules
pertaining to initiation, filing, and dismissal. It cannot be considered as forum shopping
as they have distinct differences. There is forum shopping when a party repetitively
avails of several judicial remedies in different courts simultaneously or successively,
founded on the same transaction, facts, and issues raised.6 The impeachment case is
yet to be initiated by the filing of the Articles of Impeachment before the Senate. The
process before the House is merely inquisitorial and is merely a means of discovering if
a person truly holds such public office.
A quo warranto is the proper proceeding because impeachment is only for
officials who are legally holding public office. Strictly speaking, it is not appropriate and
possible to impeach a person from office if in the first place; he or she does not legally
hold such public office, eh? The crux of the controversy in this quo warranto proceeding
is the determination of whether or not Sereno legally holds the Chief Justice position to
be considered as an impeachable officer in the first place. Impeachment necessarily
presupposes that Sereno‟s appointment is valid and that she legally holds the public
office and the only issue is that whether or not she committed impeachable offenses to
warrant her removal from office.
However, the Constitution provides that, the President, the Vice-President, the
Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and
the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of,
culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high
crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be
removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment. 7 The only exception
to this constitutional provision is that the President and the Vice-President may also be
ousted in office by quo warranto. No more, no less. Therefore, the other officials that
may be impeached cannot be ousted via quo warranto.

5
Section 6, Article 8, 1987 Philippine Constitution
6
Heirs of Marcelo Sotto v. Palicte, G.R. No.159691 (2014)
7
Section 2, Article 11, 1987 Philippine Constitution
 Although the Supreme Court has the power to discipline and administer over
their Members, the Constitution also created an independent body, it is the so-called
Judicial and Bar Council. A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the
supervision of the Supreme Court.8 The Court‟s supervisory power consists of seeing to
it that the JBC complies with its own rules and procedures. As when the policies of the
JBC are being attacked, the Court has the duty to inquire about the matter and ensure
that the JBC comply with its own rules.

The JBC is specifically included in the Constitution which shall have the principal
function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may exercise such other
functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it. 9 It is responsible in
screening the applicants and nominating for the positions in the Judiciary subject to the
President‟s approval. They have the authority to set the qualifications needed to meet
before one applicant can become a successful member of the Judiciary. Therefore, they
must also have the authority to determine whether the appointment of Sereno a valid
one or not, for they act as the assessor of applications.

The JBC En Banc resolved not to require the incumbent Supreme Court Justices
for the Chief Justice position to submit other documentary requirements but they were
required to submit only the SALNs, bank waiver, medical certificate, laboratory results,
and the Personal Data Sheet. Even though Sereno failed to file the required SALNs,
she was still included in the shortlist of applicants transmitted to the President for
appointment. Besides, it was stated in the case that Atty. Pascual prepared a report on
the documentary requirements and SALN of candidates for the position of Chief Justice,
and opposite to the name of Sereno was the annotation that she had “complete
requirements” and a note stating “Letter 7/23/2012 – considering that her government
records in the academe are more than fifteen years old, it is reasonable to consider it
infeasible to retrieve all those files.”
How did this simple requirement slip into the eyes of the JBC that allowed them
to nominate Sereno in the first place? If the JBC has the authority to screen applicants,
then they should have the authority to declare whether the applicant‟s nomination is
valid or not. The JBC would not simply allow a person to be nominated and pass their
screening process if they think that that person is not worthy of the position applied for.
Also, how come that no one challenged the validity of Sereno‟s appointment when she
was still an Associate Justice? Why only now? Why have they waited this long to push
through with the proceedings when in the first place they already could‟ve done it in the
very beginning before Sereno assumed office.
Being a part of the Highest Tribunal for that matter creates a presumption that
she had complied with the necessary requirements set therein. The requirements for
being a Member of Supreme Court, whether Chief Justice or Associate Justice, is just

8
Section 8(1), Article 8, 1987 Philippine Consti tution
9
Section 8 (5), Article 8, 1987 Philippine Constitution
the same such as they must be at least forty years old, and must have been for fifteen
years, a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines. 10

Whether the petition is out rightly dismissible on the ground of prescription

Prescription does not lie against the State. Since in this case, the Republic is
represented by the Solicitor General, prescription is not a bar in filing an action. Nullum
tempus occurrit regi, lapse of time constitutes no bar to the proceeding. 11 Instead, it is
the government itself which commenced the present petition for quo warranto and puts
in the qualification of the person holding the highest position in the Judiciary. 12 Unlike in
other cases stated in the decision, that a quo warranto proceeding, it was filed by a
private individual seeking the invalidity of a person holding public office.

However, Rules of Court specifically provides that nothing contained in this Rule
shall be construed to authorize an action against a public officer or employee for his
ouster from office unless the same be commenced within one (1) year after the cause of
such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position, arose; nor to
authorize an action for damages in accordance with the provisions of the next preceding
section unless the same be commenced within one (1) year after the entry of the
judgement establishing the petitioner‟s right to the office in question. 13 This Rule is clear
and leaves no room for interpretation.
The phrase “Prescription does not lie against the State” was only limited to
actions of reversion to the public domains of lands which were fraudulently granted to
private individuals and not in all actions instituted by the State.14 In short, this is only
applicable to cases of land disputes and not on questioning the validity of an
appointment of a high ranking official in the country. It is clear also that public office is
not a property right, hence, no proprietary title can attach to it.

Whether Sereno is eligible for the position of Chief Justice and possesses
‘integrity’

Sereno‟s disposition to commit deliberate acts and omissions demonstrating

dishonesty and lack of forthrightness is discordant with any claim of integrity. A Member
of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and
independence.15 According to Associate Justice Jardeleza, integrity is closely related to,
or if not, approximately equated to an applicant‟s good reputation for honesty,
incorruptibility, irreproachable conduct, and fidelity to sound moral and ethical
standards.

10
Section 7 (1), Article 8, 1987 Philippine Constitution
11
McPhail v. People ex rel. Lambert, 160 III., 77; 52; Am. St. Rep., 806.
12
Ponencia, page 73
13
Section 11, Rule 66, Rules of Court
14
J. Leonen, Dissenting Opinion
15
Section 7 (3), Article 8, 1987 Philippine Constitution
 Also, Sereno‟s ineligibility for lack of proven integrity cannot be cured by her
nomination and subsequent appointment as Chief Justice by the President. It is a well-
settled rule that qualification for public office must be possessed during the time of
appointment and assumption of office and also during the officer‟s entire tenure as a
continuing requirement. 16 Neither will the President‟s appointment will cure the wrongful
nomination and subsequent appointment of Sereno as Chief Justice. This is because
the selection and nomination process is left within the control and job of JBC. Thus,
while the Court surrenders discretionary appointing power to the President, the exercise
of such discretion is subject to the non-negotiable requirement that the appointee is
qualified and all other legal requirements are satisfied, in the absence of which, the
appointment is susceptible to attack.17

However, because of its inherently subjective in nature, the determination of

integrity and other qualifications is easily susceptible to varied interpretation. Thus,
there is the need to have a central authority among others to standardize the criteria on
whether an applicant possesses these qualifications. This is the main function of the
Judicial and Bar Council.

The Supreme Court can only inquire and thereafter order that the JBC follow its
own rules, but it does not have jurisdiction to revise the rules promulgated by the JBC,
much less supplant the latter‟s exercise of discretion on its own, as what the ponencia
does now.18 Again to repeat, the Constitution created an independent and separate
body, the Judicial and Bar Council, which is responsible for screening the applicants for
a position in the Judiciary. If the Court were to rule that non-compliance with a
particular requirement would negate the integrity of an applicant, then it would
effectively making its own interpretation of the term „integrity‟ as an eligibility
qualification will arrogate upon itself a policy function given to the JBC. 19

No one is above the law. So no one could question whether how integrity is being
perceived by the JBC. Questioning it is a good as going against the Constitution. The
Constitution is there to be the guidance on everything. It is there to clear up boundaries
or settle conflicts. It was designed to be a fair judgement against everyone. It is not
biased that implies it is needed to be followed whether we liked it or not, because it was
designed for the greater good. And besides, we all have different point of views
regarding the integrity of the person but that would not matter as long as the
Constitution is there.
To quote Justice Perlas-Bernabe, “while it is true that the 1987 Constitution
states that a public officer or employee, shall, upon assumption of office and as often
thereafter may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his Statement of
Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth,” it is not sufficiently clear that solitary breach of this
requirement would virtually negate one‟s integrity. We should base our judgement in
considering other things and not just the mere failure to file SALNs.

16
Maquiling v. COMELEC, 709 Phil. 408 (2013).
17
Ponencia, page 133
18
J. Caguioa, Dissenting Opinion
19
J. Perlas-Bernabe, Dissenting Opinion
Whether Sereno is a de jure or de facto officer

The effect of a finding that a person appointed to an office is ineligible therefor is

that his presumably valid appointment will give him colour of title that confers on him the
status of a de facto officer. 20 A de facto officer is one who has the reputation or
appearance of being the officer he assumes to be but whom, in fact, under the law, has
no right or title to hold the office he or she assumes to hold.21 On the other hand, a de
jure officer is a person who is legally appointed to exercise the functions of an office. A
person will be as a de jure officer if he or she fulfils the required qualifications to hold
the office.22
In the case, since it was decided that Sereno‟s appointment is invalid from the
beginning, she is considered only as a de facto officer thus not entitled to hold a public
office. For lack of a Constitutional qualification, Sereno is ineligible to hold the position
of Chief Justice and is merely holding a colourable right or title thereto. As such, she
has never attained the status of an impeachable officer.

Conclusion

Even though the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of all cases in the Philippines,
its decisions can still be subject to criticisms. However, being the final arbiter, no court
can review its decisions further. What is left to the people is to accept it as it is.

Every Member of the Judiciary must possess all the qualifications set forth by
law, subject to the screening process of the Judicial and Bar Council. . We must
acknowledge the JBC as an independent body created by the Constitution. Like the
Supreme Court‟s decisions, we must respect the JBC‟s recommendations as well, as
they are deemed to be fit in screening applicants for the Judiciary. If they think that one
person is suitable for the position applied for, they must not hesitate to nominate him for
that position.

I believe that the Supreme Court committed a mistake in the ouster of Maria
Lourdes Sereno just because she did not file the appropriate SALNs needed. I think that
it was just a small mistake, not to file such documents. It does not impair the reputation
of the Judiciary, from which she was once the head. We must not judge Sereno based
on one mistake that she has done, but rather judge her on the totality of her
performance as a Chief Justice. I think that the appropriate way of removing her from
office, if when she has committed a culpable violation of the Constitution, treason,
bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.

“To restore and keep the public‟s confidence in the integrity of their government,
state government and its officials must be open, honest and transparent.”- John Lynch

20
Regala v. CFI of Bataan, 77 Phil. 684 (1946).
21
Codilla, et al., v. Martinez, etc., et al., G.R. No. L-14569 (1960)
22
https://definitions.uslegal.com/o/officer-de-jure/