REPUBLIC of the PHILIPPINES, represented by SOLICITOR GENERAL

JOSE C. CALIDA v. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO,

G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018 [J. Tijam, En Banc]

Quo warranto is a special form of legal action used to resolve a dispute over whether a

specific person has the legal right to hold the public office that he or she occupies. Quo warranto

is used to test a person’s legal right to hold an office, not to evaluate the person’s performance in

the office.1

In the case at bar, a quo warranto petition was filed by the Office of the Solicitor General

representing the Republic of the Philippines, against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno of

the Supreme Court.

The petition stemmed from the alleged lack of proven integrity of an appointee

(respondent) in a judicial post. The petitioners contended that respondent’s repeated failure to

file her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Networth as required by law, as well as her failure to

submit the required SALNs to the Judicial and Bar Council during her application for Associate

Justice and Chief Justice, shows lack of integrity and such failures constitute violation of public

trust.

The law, through Sec. 34 of Executive Order No. 292, also known as the Administrative

Code of 1987, clearly states that a public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office

and as often thereafter as may be required by law submit a declaration under oath of his assets,

liabilities, and net worth.

The Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth, commonly known as SALN, is an

annual document that all government workers in the Philippines, whether regular or temporary,

1
Rerieved July 17, 2018, (https://oag.ca.gov/opinions/quo-warranto)
must complete and submit attesting under oath to their total assets and liabilities, including

businesses and financial interests, that make up their net worth. The assets and liabilities of the

official, his or her spouse, and any unmarried children under 18 who are living at home must be

included.2

It is noteworthy, that the aforementioned documents must be filed: (a) within thirty (30)

days after assumption of office; (b) on or before April 30, of every year thereafter; and (c) within

thirty (30) days after separation from the service. Moreover, the above documents under the

Code must be filed: (1) within thirty (30) days after assumption of office, statements of which

must be reckoned as of his first day of service; (2) on or before April 30 of every year thereafter,

statements of which must be reckoned as of the end of the preceding year; or (3) within thirty

(30) days after separation from the service, statements of which must be reckoned as of his last

day of office.3

The requirement of filing a SALN intends to curtail any suspicious and dubious accrual

and accumulation of wealth which usually results from non-declaration and non-exposure of

such matters. This also allows the government to prevent and minimize any opportunities of

corruption as well as maintain and promote the standard of honesty and transparency in public

service.

It is well-settled in the case of Casimiro vs Rigor that the requirement of filing a SALN is

enshrined in the Constitution to promote transparency in the civil service and serves as a

deterrent against government officials bent on enriching themselves through unlawful means. By

mandate of law, every government official or employee must make a complete disclosure of his

assets, liabilities and net worth in order to avoid any issue regarding questionable accumulation

2
Retrived July 17, 2018, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statement_of_Assets,_Liabilities_and_Net_worth)
3
RA 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
of wealth. The importance of requiring the submission of a complete, truthful, and sworn SALN

as a measure to defeat corruption in the bureaucracy cannot be gainsaid. Full disclosure of wealth

in the SALN is necessary to particularly minimize, if not altogether eradicate, the opportunities

for official corruption, and maintain a standard of honesty in the public service. Through the

SALN, the public can monitor movement in the fortune of a public official; it serves as a valid

check and balance mechanism to verify undisclosed properties and wealth. The failure to file a

truthful SALN reasonably puts in doubt the integrity of the officer and normally amounts to

dishonesty.4

Here, Chief Justice Sereno, being a government employee as a professor in the UP

College of Law from 1986 to 2006, failed to file her SALN in 11 instances since the beginning

of her service in the university. Based on the records of the UP Human Resources Development

Office (UP HRDO), it appears that while employed at the UP College of Law, Chief Justice

Sereno only submitted her SALNs for the years 1985, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995,

1996, 1997, 1998, and 2002.

Hence, the repeated non-filing of SALN therefore constitutes culpable violation of the

Constitution and betrayal of public trust, which are grounds for impeachment under the

Constitution.5

In addition thereto, Chief Justice Sereno, as an applicant for the positions of Associate

Justice on 2010 and a Chief Justice on 2012, however submitted insufficient SALNs upon her

application, therefore, having a clear ground for her disqualification from being the

aforementioned positions.

4
G.R. No. 206661, December 10, 2014, HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, in his capacity as Acting Ombudsman, Office
of the Ombudsman; HON. ROGELIO L. SINGSON, in his capacity as Department of Public Works and Highways
Secretary, Petitioner, vs. JOSEFINO N.RIGOR, Respondent.
5
Retrieved July 17, 2018, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by
SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA, Petitioner v. HON. CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO, Respondent.
Opinion

This case, however, is a very highly politicized issue which caused to discover loopholes

in our justice system. This is considered to be an antecedent showing that an impeachable officer

may be ousted in a short cut quo warranto petition without going to the normal and proper trial in

a proper forum, of which an impeachable officer must.

Even though the Supreme Court is given the power and jurisdiction over petitions for quo

warranto, as provided for under Sec. 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution:

“Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public

ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,

mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.”

Such power is not absolute in this case.

The Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to hear a quo warranto case because it

cannot be the arbiter against itself. Although composed of many members, it is considered to be

only one body.

Conversely, a quo warranto proceeding is intended to question the validity of an officer’s

appointment/removal, therefore, it presupposes a tribunal with a higher position than that of the

officer. However, it is not the case in this situation. The Supreme Court EN Banc takes

jurisdiction over a quo warranto case against their co-Chief Justice.

 Although, the Supreme Court Justices are clothed with Sec. 2, Article XI of the 1987

Philippine Constitution of which protects impeachable officers from any other modes of removal

except for impeachment:

“Section 2. 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.”

It is only the Congress that can hear and decide cases concerning Chief Justices, because

of its power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts as provided

for under Sec. 2. Article VIII of the Constitution.

In my opinion, the aforementioned forum is the proper tribunal and impeachment is the

proper remedy in the case at hand, and not a quo warranto proceeding.

References: