!

! !

Quo Warranto Case Against CJ Sereno

DIGEST: CONCURRING
CONCURRING AND AND DISSENTING
DISSENTING OPINION
OPINION
OF
OFJ.J.VELASCO,
VELASCO,JR.
JR.
The excerpts
The digest printed below
printed was
below prepared
were by by
prepared thethe
Ateneo de de
Ateneo Manila University
Manila School
University of Law.
School of Law.

Republic of the Philippines v. Maria Lourdes Sereno

G.R. No. 237428, 11 May 2018

Excerpts from
from
Digest of the
thethe Concurring
Concurring
Concurring and
andand Dissenting
Dissenting
Dissenting Opinion
Opinion
Opinion ofof
of J. J.J.VELASCO,
VELASCO,
VELASCO, JR.
JR.JR.

Facts: See majority decision.

Issues:

1. Whether quo warranto is available even against impeachable officers.

2. Whether quo warranto can unseat the Respondent Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno.

Opinion:

1. Whether quo warranto is available even against impeachable officers. YES

The remedy of quo warranto is available to unseat even an impeachable officer.

Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides that a member of the Supreme Court, among other
officials, may be removed from office by way of impeachment proceedings. Nothing in the adverted provision,
however, precludes a resort to quo warranto as a means to unseat a member of this Court or any impeachable
officer. After all, a quo warranto and impeachment proceedings are anchored on different grounds and
governed by different procedural mechanisms.

On one hand, a removal by impeachment presupposes that the officer subject of the proceeding had legally
assumed his or her office, which in turn means he or she had all the qualifications and none of the qualifications
therefor. A quo warranto proceeding, on the other hand, is brought against a person who is alleged to have
usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully held or exercised a public office. Quo warranto is available against a
person who had no legal right to hold the office from the outset, his or her appointment thereto being void ab
initio, considering that he or she does not have all or some of the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution or
the law for the position. As to him or her, no impeachment proceeding is required for his or her removal as he or
she is deemed never to have assumed and occupied the office in the first place.

In fact, the Supreme Court previously acknowledged the availability of recourse through a quo warranto against
an impeachable officer in the case of Estrada vs. Desierto where it took cognizance of a quo warranto petition
against a sitting President even after she has taken her oath and assumed her office. In the Court’s exercise of
jurisdiction in this case, it adheres to its judicial duty to exercise jurisdiction “over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus” in Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution.

1!
 !

2. Whether quo warranto can unseat the Respondent Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno. NO

Nullity of the JBC Nomination is a condition sine qua non to the filing of a petition for quo warranto against a
member of the Supreme Court.

Unlike the other impeachable officers, the members of the Supreme Court and the Ombudsman and her
deputies, may only be considered for appointment after passing through rigorous scrutiny by an office created
by constitutional mandate – the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).

Citing the case of Villanueva v. Judicial and Bar Council, the Court elucidated that the JBC is charged with the
duty of screening aspiring justices, making certain that those who are nominated for an appointment to the
Supreme Court possess all the eligibilities and qualifications set by the Constitution for a judicial post. Its
primary functions are searching, screening, selecting applicants, and recommending nominees for vacancies in
the judiciary for appointment by the President and pursuant to its mandates, the JBC has authority to set the
standards/criteria in choosing its nominees for every vacancy in the judiciary, subject only to the minimum
qualifications required by the Constitution and law for every position.

The rules applicable during Respondent’s nomination and subsequent appointment reflected this Constitutional
prescription and ensured that only those who are found to possess all the constitutional and statutory
qualifications will be nominated for appointment to the Supreme Court. In this regard, Judicial and Bar Council
Resolution No. JBC-009 (JBC-009) set forth the specific parameters to objectively approximate and assess the
subjective qualifications of “competence, integrity, probity, and independence” of the applicants for the
erstwhile vacancy in this Court.

In this case, the JBC was not impleaded as a party, nor was its nomination of Respondent set aside or nullified.
JBC’s nomination and inclusion of the Respondent in the list of candidates for Chief Justice at the time came
after a determination of her possession of all the qualifications and eligibilities, as it is constitutionally
mandated to do so. As a constitutional body vested with the power and wide latitude in screening and selecting
applicants to the Judiciary, the JBC is more than entitled to the presumption of regularity in the performance of
its constitutional duty.

Therefore, the nullification of the JBC's nomination of the Respondent is a precondition before the Court could
grant a quo warranto petition and declare her without right or claim to post she holds on the ground of
ineligibility. The present petition for quo warranto is premature. The JBC should have been afforded the
opportunity to review and defend its findings that the nominee possesses all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications prescribed by the Constitution and pertinent laws, and subsequently its own decision to
nominate the official based on these findings. Otherwise, the constitutional duty and the importance of the JBC
as a constitutional body will be denigrated and downplayed as its actions or decisions can easily be
circumvented through a petition for quo warranto without giving it its day in court. As there was no attempt to
assail and contest, much less, nullify the JBC’s findings that Respondent possessed all the qualifications to be
appointed to this Court, the independent constitutional body’s determination of Respondent’s eligibility to her
judicial post must stand.
o In reviewing the grounds cited in this quo warranto, allegations of Respondent’s ineligibilities
ultimately boil down to her lack of integrity. Under Rule 10 of JBC-009, when the integrity of an
applicant for consideration is challenged or raised, a unanimous vote from all the members of the JBC
is needed for the challenged applicant’s inclusion in the list of nominees.
o It is noted that no one raised or challenged Respondent’s integrity when she was first included in the
list of nominees to a post in this Court in 2010 and as well as for Chief Justice in 2012.
o Furthermore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be invoked
against public authorities as well as against private individuals.

In summary, a quo warranto petition, in extreme situations, may be filed even against impeachable officials
with the Supreme Court, except for petitions filed against the President or Vice President, which should be
brought before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. With respect to the members of the Supreme Court and the
Ombudsman who need a nomination from the JBC as a precondition, no petition for quo warranto can be filed
against any of them without first filing a petition for certiorari against the JBC and the official sought to be

2!
 !

removed to nullify the nomination made by the council for said impeachable official. Such nullification of the
nomination of the challenged official by the JBC should first be obtained to pave the way for the ouster of an
unfit or unqualified official.

A becoming regard of the Respondent's position as the Chief Justice of this Court and the head of the
government's Judicial Department, requires, at the very least, the strictest compliance with all the requisites
before quo warranto proceedings should be initiated.

3!