Quo Warranto Case Against CJ Sereno

DIGEST: DISSENTING
DISSENTING OPINION
OPINION OF J.OF J. CARPIO
CARPIO
Theexcerpts
The digest printed
printedbelow
belowwas prepared
were byby
prepared thethe
Ateneo dede
Ateneo Manila University
Manila School
University of of
School Law.
Law.

Republic of the Philippines v. Maria Lourdes Sereno

G.R. No. 237428, 11 May 2018

Excerpts
Digestfrom theDissenting
of the DissentingOpinion
OpinionofofJ.J.CARPIO
CARPIO

Facts: See majority decision.

Issues:

1. Whether repeated non-filing of SALNs constitute culpable violation of the Constitution and
betrayal of public trust, which are grounds for impeachment under the Constitution.
2. Whether government employees can be required to keep their SALNs for more than 10 years.
3. What is the penalty for failure to file SALN, and when does the offense prescribe?
4. Whether a certification duly issued by the official custodian that no SALN of a government
employee is on file in the custodian’s office constitutes prima facie proof of non-filing of the
SALN.
5. Whether Respondent failed to adduce satisfactory evidence to rebut OSG’s prima facie evidence
of non-filing of SALNs for several years.
6. What is the effect of Respondent’s failure to file her SALN under oath within 30 days from
assuming office?
7. Whether Sec. 2, Article XI of the Constitution forecloses a quo warranto action against
impeachable officers.

Opinion:

1. Whether repeated non-filing of SALNs constitute culpable violation of the Constitution, and
betrayal of public trust, which are grounds for impeachment under the Constitution. YES

The requirement of filing a SALN aims to suppress any questionable accumulation of wealth resulting
from non-disclosure of such matters. The filing of SALN within the prescribed period is mandated by the
Constitution. Therefore, repeated non-filing constitutes culpable violation of the Constitution, and betrayal
of public trust, which are grounds for impeachment under the Constitution.

“Culpable violation” means willful and intentional violation of the Constitution. It implies deliberate
intent, or even a certain degree of perversity. “Betrayal of public trust,” on the other hand, means less than
criminal but attended by bad faith. Since the repeated failure constitutes the two grounds abovementioned,
it is immaterial if the failure to file SALN is committed before appointment to an impeachable office.

However, it is up to Congress, the constitutional body vested with exclusive authority to remove
impeachable officers, to determine if the culpable violation of the Constitution or betrayal of public trust,
committed before appointment as an impeachable officer, warrants removal from office.

1
2. Whether government employees can be required to keep their SALNs for more than 10 years. NO

Section 8(C)(4) of RA 6713: SALNs shall be available to the public in the custodian’s office for 10 years
from filing, after which, the SALNs may be destroyed, unless needed in an ongoing investigation.

Government custodians are required to keep SALNs for only 10 years. Thus, government employees
cannot be required to keep their SALNs for more than 10 years. Applicants should not be required to
submit SALNs more than 10 years prior to application.

The vacancy for the Chief Justice post in 2012 was the first and only time that the JBC required
applicants to submit all SALNs prior to application. Thereafter, the JBC only required SALNs for two
years prior to application.

3. What is the penalty for failure to file SALN, and when does the offense prescribe?

The penalties for failure to file SALN are as follows:

o RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act): Cause for removal or dismissal
o RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees): Fine not
exceeding equivalent of 6 months salary OR suspension of not more than 1 year OR removal
depending on the gravity of the offense
o CSC Resolution No. 06-0231: clarified the imposition of penalty, i.e., 1st offense - suspension for one
(1) month and one (1) day to 6 months; 2nd offense - dismissal from the service

The offense of failure to file the SALN prescribes in 20 years, as provided in RA 3019. PCGG v. Desierto
(2004) states that when it is impossible for the State to have known when the offense or violation took
place, the prescriptive period should be computed from the discovery of the commission thereof and not
from the day of such commission.

4. Whether a certification duly issued by the official custodian that no SALN of a government
employee is on file in the custodian’s office constitutes prima facie proof of non-filing of the SALN.
YES

In cases involving the requirement of filing the SALN, a certification duly issued by the official custodian
that no SALN of a government employee is on file in the custodian’s office constitutes prima facie proof
of non-filing of the SALN. This shifts the burden of evidence to the government employee to prove
otherwise. The government employee must present countervailing evidence to shift the burden of
evidence back. Otherwise, he can be held liable for non-filing.

5. Whether Respondent failed to adduce satisfactory evidence to rebut OSG’s prima facie evidence of
non-filing of SALNs for several years. YES

As a UP College of Law faculty member, Respondent was a government employee. She was required to
file her SALN annually. To prove her failure to file her SALN 11 times in her 20 years as a law professor,
the OSG submitted:
● A Certification from the UP HRDO, stating that from 2000-2009, the SALN on file is as of Dec.
31, 2002;
● Letter dated 06 March 2018 from Dir. Escoto, stating that the SALNs of 1985, 1990, 1991, 1993,
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 and 2002 were found in the UP HRDO records;
● Certification from Office of the Ombudsman Central Records Division stating that Respondent
did not file SALN from 1999-2009 except the SALN ending Dec 1998.

The submissions above constitute prima facie proof of Respondent’s non-filing of SALNs for several
years while employed as a UP Law professor. The OSG satisfied the initial burden of proof. Thus, if not
contradicted by the Respondent, the prima facie evidence is considered sufficient to sustain Respondent’s
liability for non-filing.

2
 Respondent manifested in her Memorandum that she “religiously filed her SALNs”; and she made it
appear that while she had filed, she could not longer find her personal copies. However, if this were true,
she could have secured a Certification from UP HRDO that she filed her SALNs. Respondent never
secured such. Her failure to do so exposes as a misrepresentation her claim that she could not find her
SALNs.

Respondent failed to adduce satisfactory evidence to rebut OSG’s prima facie evidence, which therefore
stands uncontradicted, and thus she can be held liable for her repeated non-filing of SALNs.

In Concerned Taxpayer v. Doblada Jr. (2005), relied upon by Respondent, the SC held that the OCA
certification that Doblada had no SALNs on file for certain years was not conclusive; and that Doblada
was able to counter the OCA certification with a letter from the Clerk of Court through whom he claimed
to have filed all his SALNs, certifying that the Clerk had transmitted to the OCA Doblada’s SALN for
2000. This cannot apply in this case because Respondent did not file any countervailing evidence to cast
doubt on the record keeping of the UP HRDO. Respondent failed to shift the burden.

6. What is the effect of Respondent’s failure to file her SALN under oath within 30 days from
assuming office?

In her Memorandum, Respondent stated that the SALN she filed with the JBC when she was applying as
an Associate Justice of the SC was not the required SALN as it is understood in law, but was a measuring
tool, required to test the veracity of her declarations in her ITRs. True, there was nothing irregular
attending Respondent’s submission of her unsworn SALN when she was applying for the position.

However, when she was appointed and assumed the position of Associate Justice on 16 August 2010, she
was duty-bound to submit a SALN in the legally prescribed form and within the prescribed period. Thus,
she was required to file under oath her SALN within 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.

She failed to do so. 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.

The Constitution, law, and rules require that the sworn entry SALN “must be reckoned as of his/her first
day of service” and must be filed “within 30 days after assumption of office.” Respondent failed to file
within 30 days, a clear violation of Sec. 17, Article XI of the Constitution. This constitutes a violation
committed while she was already serving as an impeachable officer.

7. Whether Sec. 2, Article XI of the Constitution forecloses a quo warranto action against impeachable
officers. YES

The main decision states that Sec. 2, Article XI of the Constitution does not foreclose a quo warranto
action against impeachable officers; that if it were the case, the State is deprived of a remedy to correct a
“public wrong” arising from defective or void appointments.

This is erroneous. Said article expressly provides the mode of removal from office of the enumerated
government officials: by impeachment, and not through any other mode. Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan
(1984) declares that this “constitutional provision proscribes removal from office of the constitutional
officers by any other method.” This is the Constitution’s strongest guarantee of security of tenure, which
effectively blocks the use of any other legal ways of ousting an officer.

In In re First Indorsement from Hon. Gonzales (1988), initiating disbarment proceedings which will have
the effect of disqualifying a sitting Justice was rejected by the SC because the sitting Justice “may be
removed from office only by impeachment.” The Court further held in that case that the rule rests on
judicial independence and separation of powers. Without judicial independence, Members of the Supreme

3
Court may be charged by many parties for any reason, who may seek to affect the exercise of judicial
authority by the Court.

The sole disciplining authority of all impeachable officers is Congress, declared by Section 3(1), and
Section 3(6) of Article XI of the Constitution as an exclusive power of House of Representatives and
Senate, respectively. The House impeaches, the Senate convicts. To allow any other method is to re-write
the Constitution. To permit a quo warranto petition violates the Constitution.

If the Court finds that an impeachable officer has committed an impeachable act, the Court should refer
the matter to Congress, which has the exclusive mandate to remove such officer. The Court has no power
to decide on the guilt or innocence of a sitting Justice in the administrative complaint because such act is
a usurpation of the exclusive disciplinary power of Congress over impeachable officers under the
Constitution.