View full case

REPUBLIC v. MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

FACTS:

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), initiated a petition for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto to declare the appointment of Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court void and to oust her from office. The petition argued that Sereno was ineligible for the position because she failed to regularly disclose her assets, liabilities, and net worth as required by the Constitution, the Anti-Graft Law, and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Sereno had served as a professor at the University of the Philippines College of Law from November 1986 to June 2006, during which she was legally obliged to file Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) annually.

According to records from the U.P. Human Resources Development Office (HRDO) and the Office of the Ombudsman, Sereno did not file her SALNs for several years between 1986 and 2006, except for certain years like 1985, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 2002. Moreover, there were substantial lapses in the submission of her SALNs to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), which were required for her nomination as Chief Justice. Specifically, during her nomination process, Sereno failed to submit the required SALNs for a ten-year period to the JBC. Rather than submitting her complete SALNs, Sereno provided explanations and justifications for her non-compliance, claiming among other reasons, the infeasibility of retrieving old records and her clearance from the U.P. HRDO, which she argued cleared her of any administrative liabilities.

The JBC, which initially required all Justice nominees to submit their previous SALNs, seemed to relax its requirements and considered that submission of SALNs for the immediate preceding ten years (from 2001 to 2011) might constitute substantial compliance for the position of Chief Justice. However, Sereno’s submission of only three (2009, 2010, and 2011) SALNs was notably insufficient by these relaxed standards. These factors led to the claim that Sereno lacked the integrity required for the position of Chief Justice, as her failure to comply with the SALN requirements signaled a lack of transparency and honesty anticipated by the Constitution and relevant legislations. The present petition thus sought her removal from office on grounds of ineligibility and lack of proven integrity.

ISSUES:

  1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court whether the Court can assume jurisdiction and give due course to the instant petition for quo warranto against respondent who is an impeachable officer and against whom an impeachment complaint has already been filed with the House of Representatives.

  2. Prescription whether the petition is outrightly dismissible on the ground of prescription.

  3. Eligibility whether respondent is eligible for the position of Chief Justice, particularly:

    • Whether the determination of candidates' eligibility for nomination is the sole and exclusive function of the JBC and whether such determination partakes of the character of a political question outside the Court's supervisory and review powers.

    • Whether respondent failed to file her SALNs as mandated by the Constitution and required by the law and its implementing rules and regulations; and if so, whether the failure to file SALNs voids the nomination and appointment of respondent as Chief Justice.

    • Whether respondent failed to comply with the submission of SALNs as required by the JBC; and if so, whether the failure to submit SALNs to the JBC voids the nomination and appointment of respondent as Chief Justice.

    • In case of a finding that respondent is ineligible to hold the position of Chief Justice, whether the subsequent nomination by the JBC and the appointment by the President cured such ineligibility.

  4. De Jure or De Facto whether respondent is a de jure or de facto officer.

RULING:

  1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court holds jurisdiction over the quo warranto petition against respondent, an impeachable officer, on the grounds that the petition challenges respondent's right and title to the position of Chief Justice, questioning her eligibility based on non-compliance with the legal requirements.

  2. Prescription The petition is not dismissible on the ground of prescription as prescription does not lie against the State, and considering circumstances that preclude the application of prescribed periods in this case.

  3. Eligibility

    • The Supreme Court exercises supervisory authority over the JBC, including ensuring compliance with its rules. The determination of the eligibility of candidates is not solely within JBC's discretion and is reviewable by the Court.

    • Respondent failed to file her SALNs regularly as mandated by the Constitution and required by law. This failure voids the nomination and appointment of respondent as Chief Justice as it is reflective of her lack of integrity, a fundamental requirement under the Constitution.

    • The lack of submission of SALNs as required by the JBC means that respondent's integrity was never established at the time of her application, further leading to a void nomination.

    • The subsequent nomination by the JBC and appointment by the President do not cure respondent's ineligibility since she never possessed the eligibility required for the Chief Justice position.

  4. De Jure or De Facto Respondent is a de facto officer as she lacks the fundamental qualification of integrity. Thus, she can be removed via quo warranto proceedings rather than through impeachment alone.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Public Office as Public Trust Public officers must adhere to requirements of integrity, competence, probity, responsibility, and transparency as fundamental conditions to hold public office.

  • Compliance with SALN Laws Regular filing and accurate submission of SALNs is a constitutional and statutory requirement for public officials, essential to maintain transparency and accountability.

  • Supervisory Authority The Supreme Court supervises the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to ensure compliance with its own rules and evaluation criteria.

  • De Facto Doctrine An official who lacks Constitutional qualifications holds mere colorable title to the office and thus can be ousted by quo warranto.

  • Non-Prescription Against State Prescription does not apply against the State in the pursuit of public interest to remove ineligible public officer.

  • Quo Warranto vs Impeachment While impeachment addresses offenses committed during incumbency, quo warranto addresses eligibility to hold office in the first place.