Re: Show Cause Order in G.R. No. 237428 (Republic vs. Sereno)

A lawyer's public statements attacking the integrity and impartiality of the courts during the pendency of judicial proceedings violate the sub judice rule and constitute a violation of Canon 13, Rule 13.02, and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary; the "clear and present danger" rule applies only in contempt proceedings, not in administrative disciplinary actions against lawyers and judges.

The case stemmed from the highly publicized quo warranto petition filed by the Office of the Solicitor General against then-Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, questioning her eligibility for the Chief Justice position due to her alleged failure to submit complete Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) during her application to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). During the pendency of these proceedings, Sereno engaged in numerous public speaking engagements, interviews, and forums where she made statements criticizing the Court and its Members.

• Original Filing: Administrative Matter No. 18-06-01-SC, an offshoot of G.R. No. 237428 (quo warranto case)
• Lower Court Decision: N/A (original jurisdiction of the SC)
• Appeal: N/A (directly filed with the SC)
• SC Action: The SC, in its May 11, 2018 decision in the quo warranto case, ordered Sereno to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for violating the CPR and NCJC; Sereno filed her Verified Compliance with Motion for Inhibition on June 13, 2018; the SC En Banc resolved the matter on July 17, 2018

On August 30, 2017, an impeachment complaint was filed before the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno for culpable violation of the Constitution, corruption, high crimes, and betrayal of public trust. During the congressional hearings on the impeachment complaint, information regarding Sereno's alleged disqualification as Chief Justice came to light, particularly her purported failure to submit complete Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) during her application to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). Based on this information, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a petition for quo warranto against Sereno, questioning her eligibility for the Chief Justice position.

Throughout the pendency of both the impeachment proceedings and the quo warranto case, Sereno consistently refused to participate in the congressional hearings and declined to recognize the SC's jurisdiction over the quo warranto petition. Instead of participating in the judicial process and answering the charges against her through proper legal channels, she embarked on a nationwide campaign, delivering speeches and accepting interviews before students and faculties at various universities, public forums, television programs, and public rallies. According to the SC, these public statements discussed the merits of the quo warranto case, vilified members of Congress, cast aspersions on the impartiality of the SC's Members, degraded public faith in the Judiciary, and falsely imputed ill motives against the government.

The SC noted that Sereno's public utterances included statements that the grant of the quo warranto petition would result in dictatorship, that the livelihood and safety of others were in danger, that the people could no longer rely on the Court's impartiality, and that she could not expect fairness from the Court in resolving the quo warranto petition against her. These statements were made in various forums, including a "Speak Truth to Power" forum at UP Diliman on May 5, 2018, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Central Luzon Regional Convention on May 2, 2018, a forum at the Ateneo Law School on April 25, 2018, the commencement exercises at the University of San Agustin in Iloilo City on April 20, 2018, a fellowship of the Philippine Bar Association on April 11, 2018, the 30th Anniversary and 23rd National Convention of the Philippine Women Judges Association on March 8, 2018, and a CNN Philippines interview on March 9, 2018.

The SC was disquieted by the doubts cast upon the impartiality and dignity of the Court and its Members, and by the obfuscation of the issues in the quo warranto proceedings resulting from these out-of-court discussions. The SC was particularly perturbed that Sereno, not only as a member of the Bar but as one asserting her eligibility for the highest position in the Judiciary, significantly participated in what the SC characterized as a detestable and blatant disregard of the sub judice rule. Consequently, in its May 11, 2018 decision in the quo warranto case, the SC ordered Sereno to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary for transgressing the sub judice rule and for casting aspersions and ill motives against the Members of the Court.

On June 13, 2018, Sereno filed her Verified Compliance with a Respectful Motion for Inhibition, arguing that the acts imputed against her did not amount to conduct unbecoming of a Justice and a lawyer warranting disbarment or any other disciplinary measure. She contended that she should not be judged on the stringent standards set forth in the CPR and NCJC because her participation in the quo warranto case was not as counsel or a judge but as a party-litigant. She also argued that her statements did not create any serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice to warrant the exercise of the Court's contempt power under the "clear and present danger" rule, and that she was merely discharging her duty as a Justice and a lawyer to uphold the Constitution and promote respect for the law. She further claimed that she was denied due process despite her repeated demands, and that the Solicitor General had repeatedly made personal attacks against her, necessitating her public responses.

• The Office of the Solicitor General, in the underlying quo warranto case, argued that Sereno was ineligible for the Chief Justice position due to her failure to submit complete SALNs as required by the JBC.
• In this administrative matter, the SC itself acted as the disciplining authority, asserting its constitutional mandate to discipline members of the Bar and judicial officers.
• The SC argued that actions violating the sub judice rule may be dealt with not only through contempt proceedings but also through administrative actions, citing the lawyer's relationship to the judicial process and the significant dangers that a lawyer's speech poses to the trial process.
• The SC invoked Canon 13 and Rule 13.02 of the CPR, which prohibit lawyers from making public statements in the media regarding pending cases tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
• The SC also cited various provisions of the NCJC, including Canon 1 (Independence), Canon 2 (Integrity), Canon 3 (Impartiality), and Canon 4 (Propriety), which impose strict standards on judges' conduct both in and out of court.

• Sereno argued that she should not be judged on the stringent standards set forth in the CPR and NCJC, emphasizing that her participation in the quo warranto case was not as counsel or a judge but as a party-litigant directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings.
• She contended that the imputed acts against her did not create any serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice to warrant the exercise of the Court's contempt power under the "clear and present danger" rule, citing P/Supt. Marantan vs. Atty. Diokno.
• She argued that the quo warranto case was inherently controversial and of transcendental importance, so she could not be faulted for the public attention it garnered.
• Assuming the CPR and NCJC applied, she claimed she was discharging her duty as a Justice and a lawyer to uphold the Constitution and promote respect for the law and legal processes.
• She invoked the following circumstances to justify her actions: (a) the Solicitor General repeatedly made personal attacks against her and publicly discussed the merits of the case, necessitating her responses; and (b) she was denied her right to due process despite her repeated demands.
• She filed a Motion for Inhibition against Justices Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado M. Peralta, Noel G. Tijam, Francis H. Jardeleza, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Samuel R. Martires, arguing that they should recuse themselves due to alleged bias and partiality.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the Motion for Inhibition filed by respondent against six Justices should be granted.
• Substantive Issues: Whether respondent may be held administratively liable for her actions and public statements regarding the quo warranto case against her during its pendency.

• Procedural: The SC denied the Motion for Inhibition, ruling that mere imputation of bias or partiality is not enough ground for inhibition, especially when the charge is without basis. The SC noted that the grounds for this motion were the same as those already discussed and resolved in the quo warranto case, and found no cogent reason to deviate from its previous ruling.

• Substantive: The SC ruled in the affirmative — Sereno was administratively liable for her actions and public statements during the pendency of the quo warranto case.

• On the applicability of the CPR and NCJC: The SC rejected Sereno's argument that she should be treated as an ordinary litigant. The SC held that lawyers must conduct themselves with great propriety, and their behavior must be beyond reproach anywhere and at all times, whether dealing with clients or the public. Lawyers may be disciplined for acts committed even in their private capacity for acts tending to bring reproach on the legal profession. There can be no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in a lawyer's private life or professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Similarly, judges and Justices are held to a higher standard as they should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence.

• On the "clear and present danger" rule: The SC clarified that while the "clear and present danger" rule applies in contempt proceedings to determine whether the court's contempt power should be exercised, this case is not a contempt proceeding. The SC is discharging its constitutionally-mandated duty to discipline members of the Bar and judicial officers. Actions violating the sub judice rule may be dealt with not only through contempt proceedings but also through administrative actions. What applies in this administrative matter is the CPR and NCJC, which mandate strict observance of the sub judice rule.

• On the violation of the sub judice rule: The SC found that Sereno's public utterances did not only tend to arouse public opinion but indisputably tended to tarnish the Court's integrity and unfairly attributed false motives against its Members. Sereno insinuated that: (i) the grant of the quo warranto petition would result in dictatorship; (ii) the livelihood and safety of others were in danger; (iii) the people could no longer rely on the Court's impartiality; and (iv) she could not expect fairness from the Court. While the quo warranto case was controversial and naturally invited public attention, Sereno, as a lawyer and one asserting right to the highest position in the Judiciary, succumbed to and participated in the affray that diverted the proceedings from its primary purpose and created antipathy from the public to the Court.

• On the Marantan case: The SC distinguished P/Supt. Marantan vs. Atty. Diokno from the present case. In Marantan, the public statements were merely expressions of the victims' families and their counsel's opinion and position in the criminal case. In Sereno's case, her statements went beyond the arguments and contentions in her pleadings — for example, she never alleged in her pleadings that the grant of the quo warranto petition would result in dictatorship, but she did so in her public speeches.

• On the discharge of duty argument: The SC characterized Sereno's argument as "desperate and convoluted, if not absurd." Her actions and statements were far from being an innocent discharge of duty of upholding the Constitution; they were direct and loaded attacks on the Court and its Members, constituting blatant disrespect to the institution. As the nation's then highest-ranking judicial official, Sereno was expected to exercise extreme caution in giving her opinions and observe genuine confidence in the Court's processes.

• On the Solicitor General's statements: The SC held that the tenor of the Solicitor General's statements was never made to challenge the Court's authority or undermine its ability to pass judgment with impartiality. At most, they were harmless statements contemplated in Marantan — mere reiterations of the Republic's position in the quo warranto case. The newsman's questioned statements were nothing but publication of reports on the status of the case, coming within the purview of freedom of the press.

• On due process: The SC ruled that Sereno was accorded due process. The essence of due process is to be heard, and in administrative proceedings, this means a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side. Sereno was given several opportunities to explain her side: Congress invited her to shed light on the accusations but she never heeded the invitation; the Court gave her the opportunity to comment on the petition and file several motions; and a special hearing for her requested oral argument was conducted during the Court's Baguio session in April 2018, where she was given the chance to answer questions from her colleagues.

• On the penalty: Despite the severity of the offenses, the SC imposed a lighter penalty of reprimand with a stern warning instead of suspension. The SC considered that Sereno was already removed and disqualified as Chief Justice as a result of the quo warranto proceedings, making further suspension too severe. The SC also considered her length of service in the government, including her teaching at the University of the Philippines and her incumbency in the Court, as well as the fact that she had no prior administrative liability. The SC emphasized that this accommodation was not a condonation of her wrongdoings but a second chance for her to mend her ways.

• Sub Judice Rule — A Latin term referring to matters under or before a judge or court; matters under judicial consideration. The rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to pending judicial proceedings. The restriction applies to litigants and witnesses, the public in general, and most especially to members of the Bar and the Bench. A violation of this rule may render one liable for indirect contempt under Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, or may be dealt with through administrative actions against lawyers and judges.

• Clear and Present Danger Rule (in Contempt vs. Administrative Proceedings) — In contempt proceedings, the "clear and present danger" rule applies: the evil consequence of the comment must be "extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high" before an utterance can be punished. There must exist a clear and present danger that the utterance will harm the administration of justice. However, this rule does not apply in administrative disciplinary proceedings against lawyers and judges, where the CPR and NCJC govern.

• Lawyers as Officers of the Court — Lawyers must conduct themselves with great propriety, and their behavior must be beyond reproach anywhere and at all times, whether dealing with clients or the public. Lawyers may be disciplined for acts committed even in their private capacity for acts tending to bring reproach on the legal profession. A lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.

• Higher Standard for Judges and Justices — Judges and Justices are held to a higher standard for they should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence. Their conduct should be above reproach. They must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.

• Purpose of Lawyer Discipline — The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings are to protect the public, foster public confidence in the Bar, preserve the integrity of the profession, and deter other lawyers from similar misconduct. Lawyer discipline is not meant to punish; rather, its purpose is to protect clients, the public, the courts, and the legal profession. Conviction, punishment, retribution, and denigration have no place in administrative proceedings against lawyers.

• Judicial Clemency — The SC may exercise judicial clemency even if not sought by the respondent, considering factors such as length of service, absence of prior administrative liability, and the severity of the offense. This is not a condonation of wrongdoings but a second chance for the respondent to mend her ways, express remorse, and be forthright.

• Canon 13, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court. Sereno violated this by making public statements that tended to influence the outcome of the quo warranto case.

• Rule 13.02, Canon 13, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. Sereno violated this through her numerous public speeches and interviews discussing the merits of the quo warranto case.

• Canon 11, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. Sereno violated this by casting aspersions on the integrity and impartiality of the Court and its Members.

• Canon 1, Sections 3, 7, and 8, New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary — On Independence: Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before any court; shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties; and shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct.

• Canon 2, Sections 1 and 2, New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary — On Integrity: Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer; and the behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary.

• Canon 3, Sections 2 and 4, New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary — On Impartiality: Judges shall ensure that their conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession, and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary; and shall not knowingly make any comment that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of a proceeding.

• Canon 4, Sections 2 and 6, New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary — On Propriety: As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen; and judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression but shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office.

• Section 3, Rule 71, Rules of Court — On Indirect Contempt: A person guilty of any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court, or any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice, may be punished for indirect contempt.

None. The decision was unanimous among those who participated, with no dissenting opinions filed.