Republic vs. Sereno

A member of the Supreme Court, including an impeachable officer like the Chief Justice, may be removed from office through a quo warranto proceeding if they lack a constitutional qualification—here, "proven integrity"—at the time of their appointment. The failure to file SALNs as mandated by law and to submit them to the JBC as required demonstrates a lack of integrity, rendering the appointment void ab initio.

Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno served as a professor at the University of the Philippines College of Law from 1986 to 2006. During her government service, she was required to file annual SALNs. In 2010, she applied for and was appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. In 2012, following the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, the JBC opened applications for Chief Justice, requiring government applicants to submit all previous SALNs. Respondent submitted only her SALNs for 2009, 2010, and 2011. The JBC included her in the shortlist, and she was appointed Chief Justice in August 2012. In 2017, an impeachment complaint was filed against her, revealing her alleged failure to file SALNs for several years. The Republic, through the Solicitor General, then filed this quo warranto petition.

• Respondent was a professor at UP College of Law from 1986 to 2006, during which she was required to file SALNs annually.
• Records from UP and the Ombudsman show she only filed SALNs for 1985, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2002—11 SALNs in 20 years of service.
• In 2010, she applied for Associate Justice, submitting an unsworn SALN dated 2006 but signed in 2010.
• In 2012, the JBC required applicants for Chief Justice to submit all previous SALNs (later relaxed to substantial compliance for the past 10 years).
• Respondent submitted only SALNs for 2009, 2010, and 2011, explaining in a July 23, 2012 letter that her older records were "infeasible to retrieve."
• The JBC Executive Committee deemed her requirements complete, and she was shortlisted and appointed Chief Justice.
• During impeachment proceedings in 2017, her SALN deficiencies were highlighted, leading to this quo warranto petition.

• Quo warranto is a proper remedy to question the validity of respondent's appointment, distinct from impeachment.
• Respondent's failure to file SALNs and submit them to the JBC shows lack of proven integrity, a constitutional qualification for membership in the Judiciary.
• The one-year prescriptive period for quo warranto does not apply against the State, and even if it does, it should be reckoned from discovery of the disqualification.
• The JBC's nomination and the President's appointment cannot cure a constitutional disqualification.

• As an impeachable officer, respondent may only be removed from office via impeachment, not quo warranto.
• The petition is time-barred, as the cause of ouster arose upon her appointment in 2012.
• The SALN requirement is not a constitutional qualification; integrity is subjective and determined by the JBC.
• She substantially complied with JBC requirements, and the JBC's acceptance of her explanation is a political question not reviewable by the Court.
• She filed her SALNs, and the certifications from UP and the Ombudsman are insufficient to prove non-filing.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over a quo warranto petition against an impeachable officer.
  • Whether the petition is barred by the one-year prescriptive period.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether respondent's failure to file SALNs and submit them to the JBC demonstrates lack of proven integrity.
  • Whether such lack of integrity renders her appointment void ab initio.

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over quo warranto petitions under Article VIII, Section 5 of the Constitution. Quo warranto and impeachment are distinct remedies; quo warranto questions eligibility for office, while impeachment addresses misconduct in office. Thus, quo warranto is available even against impeachable officers.
  • The one-year prescriptive period under Rule 66, Section 11 does not apply against the State, as prescription does not run against the government in matters of public interest. Even if applicable, the period should be reckoned from discovery of the disqualification, which occurred during the 2017 impeachment hearings.
• Substantive:
  • Integrity is a constitutional qualification under Article VIII, Section 7(3). The SALN requirement, mandated by the Constitution and laws (RA 6713, RA 3019), is a measure of transparency and accountability. Failure to file SALNs violates these laws and reflects a lack of integrity.
  • Respondent's failure to file SALNs for several years and her incomplete submission to the JBC, coupled with misleading explanations, demonstrate she did not possess proven integrity at the time of her appointment. Thus, her appointment is void ab initio, and she is a de facto officer removable via quo warranto.

• Quo Warranto vs. Impeachment — Quo warranto is a judicial remedy to test the legality of holding public office, while impeachment is a political process to remove officers for misconduct in office. They are not mutually exclusive.
• Proven Integrity as a Constitutional Qualification — Members of the Judiciary must possess proven integrity, which includes compliance with laws like the SALN requirement. Non-compliance raises doubts about integrity.
• Prescription Does Not Lie Against the State — The State is not bound by prescriptive periods in enforcing public rights, especially in quo warranto proceedings initiated by the Solicitor General.
• De Facto Officer Doctrine — An officer who holds office under color of authority but lacks a valid appointment is a de facto officer and may be ousted via quo warranto.

• "No one is above the law and the Constitution, not even a Chief Justice who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and obey the laws of the land."
• "The filing of SALN is not an additional requirement unduly imposed on applicants to positions in the Judiciary. When respondent failed to file her SALN, she did not comply with the Constitution, laws and appropriate codes of conduct."
• "Quo warranto and impeachment can proceed independently and simultaneously as these remedies are distinct as to (1) jurisdiction (2) grounds, (3) applicable rules pertaining to initiation, filing and dismissal, and (4) limitations."

• Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives — Cited to emphasize that the Chief Justice is not above the law.
• Estrada v. Desierto — Cited to show that quo warranto may be entertained against an impeachable officer.
• Cuenco v. Fernan and In re: Gonzales — Distinguished; these cases involved disbarment during incumbency, not quo warranto for lack of qualification.
• Concerned Taxpayer v. Doblada, Jr. — Distinguished; in Doblada, the Court found insufficient proof of non-filing, whereas here, certifications and circumstances conclusively showed non-filing.
• Agcaoili v. Suguitan — Cited to support that prescription does not run against the State in quo warranto.

• Article VIII, Section 5(1), 1987 Constitution — Grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over quo warranto petitions.
• Article VIII, Section 7(3), 1987 Constitution — Requires members of the Judiciary to be of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.
• Article XI, Section 2, 1987 Constitution — Provides that impeachable officers may be removed from office on impeachment; interpreted as not exclusive.
• Article XI, Section 17, 1987 Constitution — Mandates public officers to file SALNs.
• Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) — Implements SALN requirement and prescribes penalties for non-filing.
• Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — Requires SALN filing and considers unexplained wealth as prima facie evidence of corruption.
• Rule 66, Sections 1, 2, 11, Rules of Court — Governs quo warranto proceedings, including who may commence action and prescriptive periods.

• Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro — Concurred, emphasizing respondent's pattern of deception and lack of integrity, citing her misrepresentations in her Personal Data Sheet and manipulation of JBC processes.
• Justice Diosdado M. Peralta — Concurred, highlighting that respondent's failure to file SALNs was a culpable violation of the Constitution and that quo warranto is proper to question eligibility.
• Justice Lucas P. Bersamin — Concurred, stressing that the burden of proof in quo warranto lies with the respondent to show title to office, and respondent failed to discharge this burden.
• Justice Francis H. Jardeleza — Concurred, denying inhibition motion and explaining that his prior conflicts with respondent did not bias his judgment.

• Justice Antonio T. Carpio — Dissented, arguing that impeachment is the exclusive mode to remove impeachable officers, and quo warranto is not available. The failure to file SALN is an impeachable offense, not a ground for quo warranto.
• Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen — Dissented, asserting that quo warranto undermines judicial independence and that the SALN requirement is not a constitutional qualification. The JBC's determination of integrity is a political question.
• Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa — Dissented, contending that quo warranto is barred by prescription and that the JBC's acceptance of respondent's substantial compliance cannot be overturned.
• Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe — Dissented, opining that quo warranto is improper because the issue of integrity is a policy matter for the JBC, and the Court should not supplant the JBC's discretion.
• Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo — Dissented, maintaining that impeachment is the sole remedy for removing impeachable officers, and allowing quo warranto encroaches on legislative power and violates separation of powers.