G.R. No.

237428

REPUBLIC of the PHILIPPINES, represented by SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C.

CALIDA, Petitioner
vs.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO, Respondent

RESOLUTION

TIJAM, J.:

The Republic of the Philippines, represented by 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 of the Supreme Court (SC) and to oust and altogether exclude her
therefrom.

Respondent served as a member of the faculty of the UP College of Law (UP) from 1986 to 2006.
She also served as legal counsel for the Republic of the Philippines for several agencies from
1994 until 2009. No SALNs were filed from 2003 to 2006 when she was employed as legal counsel
for the Republic. Neither was a SALN filed when she resigned from U.P. College of Law as of 1
June 2006 and when she supposedly re-entered government service as of 16 August
2010. Respondent was appointed Associate Justice in August 2010 by President Benigno Aquino
III.

When the position for Chief Justice was declared vacant in 2012, the JBC announced the opening
for applications and nominations, requiring applicants to submit all previous SALNs up to 31
December 2011 (instead of the usual last two years of public service) and stating that, “applicants
with incomplete or out-of-date documentary requirements will not be interviewed or considered
for nomination.” Respondent accepted several nominations for the position of Chief Justice, and
submitted requirements in support thereof.

Pursuant to this, the OSRN required Respondent to submit her SALNs for the years 1995-1999,
the period within which she was employed by UP. Respondent replied through a letter that
considering that such government records in UP are more than 15 years old, “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
emphasized that her service in the government was not continuous, having had a break between
2006 (when her service in UP ended) and 2010 (when she was appointed to the SC).

Such letter was not examined or deliberated upon by the JBC. Neither can the JBC Execom
produce minutes of the deliberations to consider the issue of substantial compliance with
documentary requirements. However, despite having submitted only three SALNs (2009-2011),
the Report regarding documentary requirements and SALNs of candidates shows that her name
was annotated with “COMPLETE REQUIREMENTS”, noting her letter that it was infeasible to
retrieve all files. The same annotation was found in another list regarding SALN submissions of
20 candidates, including Respondent. Respondent was appointed by President Benigno Aquino
III on 25 August 2012. Five years later, an impeachment complaint was filed by Atty. Larry Gadon
with the House Committee of Justice. Included in the complaint was the allegation that
Respondent failed to make a truthful statement of her SALNs. Such complaint filed in the House
spawned a letter dated 21 February 2018 of Atty. Eligio Mallari to the OSG requesting the latter
to initiate a quo warranto proceeding against Respondent.

The OSG (Petitioner) argues that quo warranto is an available remedy in questioning the validity
of Respondent’s appointment, and that the one-year bar rule does not apply against the State. It
also argues that the SC has jurisdiction over the petition. The petition alleges that the failure of
Respondent to submit her SALNs as required by the JBC disqualifies her, at the outset, from
being a candidate for the position of Chief Justice. Lacking the required number of SALNs,
Respondent has not proven her integrity, which is a requirement under the Constitution. The
Republic thus concludes that since Respondent is ineligible for the position of Chief Justice for
lack of proven integrity, she has no right to hold office and may therefore be ousted via quo
warranto.

Issue: Whether or not filing of SALNs bears no relation to the Constitutional qualification
of integrity.

Ruling:

No, the filing of SALNS bears a relation to the Constitutional qualification of integrity.

The filing of SALNs is a positive duty required from every public officer or employee, first
and foremost by the Constitution. The SALN laws were passed in aid of the enforcement of the
Constitutional duty to submit a declaration under oath of one's assets, liabilities, and net worth.
This positive Constitutional duty of filing one's SALN is so sensitive and important that it even
shares the same category as the Constitutional duty imposed upon public officers and employees
to owe allegiance to the State and the Constitution. As such, offenses against the SALN laws are
not ordinary offenses but violations of a duty which every public officer and employee owes to the
State and the Constitution. In other words, the violation of SALN laws, by itself, defeats any claim
of integrity as it is inherently immoral to violate the will of the legislature and to violate the
Constitution.

Integrity, as what this Court has defined in the assailed Decision, in relation to a judge's
qualifications, should not be viewed separately from the institution he or she represents. Integrity
contemplates both adherence to the highest moral standards and obedience to laws and
legislations. Integrity, at its minimum, entails compliance with the law.

In sum, Sereno, at the time of her application, lacked proven integrity on account of her
failure to file a substantial number of SALNs and also, her failure to submit the required SALNs
to the JBC during her application for the position. Although deviating from the majority opinion as
to the proper remedy, Justice Antonio T. Carpio shares the same finding: Since respondent took
her oath and assumed her position as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on 16 August
2010, she was required to file under oath her SALN within thirty (30) days after assumption of
office, or until 15 September 2010, and the statements must be reckoned as of her first day of
service, pursuant to the relevant provisions on SALN filing.

However, respondent failed to file a SALN containing sworn statements reckoned

as of her first day of service within thirty (30) days after assuming office. While she allegedly
submitted an "entry SALN" on 16 September 2010, it was unsubscribed and the statements of
her assets, liabilities and net worth were reckoned as of 31 December 2009, and not as of her
first day of service, or as of 16 August 2010. x x x
xxxx
 The Constitution, law, and rules clearly require that the sworn entry SALN "must be
reckoned as of his/her first day of service" and must be filed "within thirty (30) days after
assumption of office." Evidently, respondent failed to file under oath a SALN reckoned as of her
first day of service, or as of 16 August 2010, within the prescribed period of thirty (30) days after
her assumption of office. In other words, respondent failed to file the required SALN upon
her assumption of office, which is a clear violation of Section 17, Article XI of the Constitution.
In light of her previous failure to file her SALNs for several years while she was a UP College of
Law Professor, her failure to file her SALN upon assuming office in 2010 as Associate Justice of
this Court constitutes culpable violation of the Constitution, a violation committed while she was
already serving as an impeachable office.

Having settled respondent's ineligibility and ouster from the position, the Court reiterates
its directive to the JBC to immediately commence the application, nomination and
recommendation process for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.