Facts:

1. Employment history
 ’86-’06 – faculty member of UP Law.
 ’03-’06 – Legal counsel of the Republic in 2 international arbitrations
o PIATCO cases (Phil. Int’l Air Terminals Co.; expropriation)
o Deputy Commissioner of the CHR

2. UP HRDO certified that there was no record on Sereno’s file of nay permission to engage in limited practice of profession. Out of 20 years of employment, only
9 SALNs were on their records.
I. She then submitted her 10th which she supposedly sourced from the filing cabinets or drawers of UP.
II. Ombudsman had no record of any SALN filed by Sereno.
III. JBC certified existence of 1 SALN.
IV. TOTAL: 11 SALNs for 20 years of service

3. Aug, 2010 – appointed as Associate Justice

 2012 – CJ seat declared vacant; JBC directed applicants to submit documents, among w/c are “all previous SALNs up to Dec. 31, 2011”(gov’t) and
“SALNs as of Dec. 31, 2011” (for private); incomplete or out-of-date documentary requirements will not be interviewed or considered for nomination.
 Sereno expressed in a letter to JBC that she resigned from UP Law in 2006 and became a part of the private sector, so she only submitted 3 SALNs (those
from when she became an Associate Justice); her UP records are >15 years old so not feasible to retrieve all those files no showing that this letter was
deliberated upon  but still she was declared to have submitted “complete requirements”
 2012 – Appointed CJ

4. Aug. 2017 – Atty. Larry Gadon filed an impeachment complaint against Sereno, alleging:
 She failed to make truthful declarations in her SALNs

5. HoR proceeded to hear the case for determination of probable cause

 Justice Peralta (chairman of JBC then) was not made aware of the incomplete SALNs
 Pieces of jewelry amounting to 15k that were not declared on her 1990 SALN (but was declared in prior years’ and subsequent years’ SALNs)
 Failure of her husband to sign one SALN
 Execution of the 1998 SALN only in 2003

6. Feb 2018 – Atty. Eligio Mallari wrote to the OSG requesting it to initiate a quo warranto proceeding against Sereno.
I. OSG filed the petition for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of QW to declare void Sereno’s appointment as CJ of the SC and to oust and altogether
exclude her
- OSG invoked: Court’s original jurisdiction under Sec. 5(1), Art. VIII in relation to the special civil action under Rule 66
7. Intervenors: Capistrano, Sec. Leila De Lima, Sen. Trillanes, et. al.
8. Sereno filed a Motion for Inhibition against AJ Bersamin, Peralta, Jardeleza, Tijam, and Leonardo-De Castro, imputing actual bias for having testified against her
on the impeachment hearing before the HoR.
Contentions:
I. OSG (petitioner)
a. QW is an available remedy because what is being sought is to question the validity of her appointment, while the impeachment
complaint accuses her of committing culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust while in office
i. Funa v. Chairman Villar
ii. Estrada v. Desierto
iii. Nacionalista Party v. De Vera
b. The phrase “may be removed from office” in Sec. 2, Art. XI means that Members of the SC may be removed through modes other
than impeachment
c. It is seasonable filed w/in the 1 year reglementary period under Sec. 11, Rule 66 since Sereno’s transgressions only came to light
during the impeachment proceedings.
d. It has an imprescriptible right to bring a QW petition under the maxim nullus tempus occurit regi (“no time runs against the
king”) prescription doesn’t operate against the government
i. The state has a continuous interest in ensuring that those who partake of its sovering powers are qualified
ii. Even assuming 1 year period is applicable to the OSG, considering the SALNs are not published, it will have no
other means by w/c to know the DQ
e. SC has jurisdiction, citing: AM No. 10-4-20-SC w/c created a permanent Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards (tasked to
investigate complaints involving graft and corruption and ethical violations against members of the SC and contending that this is not
a PQ cos such issue may be resolved through the interpretation of the provisions of the constitution, laws, JBC rules, and Canons)
f. Sereno failed to show that she is a person of proven integrity which is an indispensable qualification for membership in the Judiciary
under Sec. 7(3), Art. VIII. Because she failed to fulfill the JBC requirement of filing the complete SALNs, her integrity remains
unproven she should’ve been DQ-ed to be a candidate in the first place.
i. GF can’t be adefense since RA 3019 and Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees (RA 6713) are special laws and are mallum prohibitum

II. Sereno (respondent)

a. An impeachable officer may only be ousted through impeachment
i. Sec. 2, Art. XI1
ii. Mayor Lecaroz v. SB
iii. Cuenca v. Hon. Fernan, In Re: First Indorsement from Hon. Gonzales
iv. Re: Complaint-Affidavit for Disbarment Against SAJ Antonio T. Carpio
b. The clear intention of the framers was to create an exclusive category of public officers who can be removed only by impeachment
and not otherwise.
1
SECTION 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional
Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of
the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers
and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.
 i. Impeachment was chosen as the method of removing certain high-ranking government officers to shield them from
harassment suits that will prevent them from performing their functions which are vital to the continued operations
of government.
ii. “may” only qualifies the penalty imposable after the impeachment trial, i.e., removal from office.
c. Since the mode is wrong, the SC has no jurisdiction.
d. Cases cited by OSG are not in all fours w/ this case because the President and the VP may, in fact, be removed by means other than
impeachment (basis: Sec. 4, Art. VII, vesting in the Court the power to be the “sole judge” of all contests relating to the qualifications
of the Pres and VP). The rest don’t mention that QW may be allowed.
e. Since a petition for QW may be filed before the RTC, such would result in a conundrum cos a judge of lower court would have
effectively exercised disciplinary power and administrative supervision over an official of the Judiciary much higher in rank (contrary
to Sections 6 and 11, Art. VIII w/c vests upon the SC disciplinary and administrative power over all courts and the personnel thereof)
f. If a Member of the SC can be ousted through QW initiated by the OSG, the Congress’ “check” on the SC through impeachment
would be rendered inutile.
g. It is already time-barred. Sec. 11, Rule 66 provides 1 year period from the “cause of ouster” and not from the “discovery” of the
disqualification.
h. Court cannot presume that she failed to file her SALNs because as a public officer, she enjoys the presumption of her appointment to
officer was regular. OSG failed to overcome the presumption created by the certifications from UP HRDO that she had been cleared
of all administrative responsibilities and charges.
i. Her integrity is a PQ w/c can only be decided by the JBC and the President.
j. The fact that the SALNs are missing can’t give rise to the inference that they’re not filed. The fact that 11 SALNs were filed should
give an inference to a pattern of filing, not of non-filing.
III. Intervenors
a. It is not incumbent upon Sereno to prove to the JBC that she possessed the integrity required by the Constitution; rather the onus of
determining whether or not she qualified for the post fell upon the JBC
b. Submission of SALNs is not a constitutional requirement; what’s only required is the imprimatur of the JBC.
c. “Qualifications” such as citizenship, age, and experience are enforceable while “characteristics” such as competence, integrity,
probity, and independence are mere subjective considerations.

Issues:

1. Whether the Court can assume jurisdiction and give due course to the instant petition for QW
2. Whether Sereno may be the respondent in a QW proceeding notwithstanding the fact that an impeachment complaint has already been filed with the
House of Representatives.
3. Whether Sereno, who is an impeachable officer, can be the respondent in a QW proceeding, i.e., whether the only way to remove an impeachable officer
is through impeachment.
4. Whether to take cognizance of the QW proceeding is violative of the principle of separation of powers.
5. Whether the petition is outrightly dismissible on the ground of prescription.
6. Whether the determination of a candidate’s 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
7. Whether the filing of SALN is a constitutional statutory requirement for the CJ position
 a. If yes, whether Sereno failed to file her SALNs
i. If no, whether her SALNs were filed properly and promptly.
8. Whether Sereno failed to comply with the submission of SALNs as required by the JBC
a. If yes, whether the failure to submit SALNs to the JBC voids the nomination and appointment of Sereno as CJ
i. If yes, whether the subsequent nomination by the JBC and the appointment by the President cured such ineligibility.

9. Whether Sereno is a de jure or de facto officer.

Holding:
Preliminaries
- Intervention improper: Interest contemplated by law must be actual, substantial, material, etc. The QW was brought in the name of the
Republic; it is vested in the people, not in any private individual or group.
- No basis for the Associate Justices of the SC to inhibit in the case. They have a sacred duty to decide cases w/o fear of repression. Bias must
be proven w/ clear and convincing evidence, mere imputation thereof is not enough ground for inhibition.

1. W/N Court can assume jurisdiction…

a. Insinuations that Justices of the SC are towing the line of PDuts in entertaining the QW petition must be struck for being unfounded and sowing seeds of
mistrust and discordance between the Court and the public.
2. Is QW allowed N/W impeachment is filed w/ HoR.
a. A QW petition is allowed against impeachable officials and SC has jurisdiction.
b. SC has concurrent jurisdiction w/ the CA and RTC to issue the QW writ.
c. In this case, a direct resort to SC is justified considering that the action is directed against the CJ. (transcendental importance) OW renunciation of duty.
QW proceeding are essentially judicial in character—constitutional duty can’t be abdicated.
i. QW involves a judicial determination of the eligibility or validity of the election or appointment of a public official based on predetermined
rules
a. Re: offices filled by appointment – what is determined is the legality of the appointment
b. Title to a public office may not be contested collaterally; only directly; usurpation is considered as a public wrong
ii. Impeachment is a political process to vindicate the violation of the public’s trust.
d. Simultaneous QW proceeding and impeachment proceeding is not forum shopping and is allowed.
i. QW and impeachment may proceed independently of each other as these remedies are distinct as to (1) jurisdiction (2) grounds (3) applicable
rules pertaining to initiation, filing and dismissal, and (4) limitations
ii. Impeachment necessarily presupposes that Sereno legally holds the public office, the only issue being w/n she committed impeachable offenses
to warrant her removal from office
iii. No forum shopping because impeachment proceedings before the House is not the impeachment, since it is only a determination of probable
cause. (The impeachment case is yet to be initiated by filing of the AOI)
3. W/N the only way to remove an impeachable officer is through impeachment
a. Impeachment is not an exclusive remedy by which an invalidly appointed or invalidly elected impeachable official may be removed from office.
b. The language of Sec. 2, Art. XI does not foreclose a QW action against impeachable officers. Permissive term “may”w/c denote discretion and cannot
be construed as having a mandatory effect LOL
 c. Even the PET Rules expressly provide for the remedy of either an election protest or a petition for QW to question the eligibility of the President and the
VP, both of whom are impeachable officers.
d. The enumeration of the offenses being absolute does not mean to say that the enumeration is a complete statement of the causes of removal from office.
If other causes of removal are available, then other modes of ouster can likewise be availed.
e. To say that appointments or election of impeachable officers are outside judicial review indicates that their appointments can’t possible have any
possible defect pertaining to the Constitutionally-prescribed qualifications w/c cannot OW be raised in an impeachment proceeding.
4. W/N exercising jurisdiction is violative of separation of powers
a. The SC’s exercise of its jurisdiction over a QW petitions is not violative of the doctrine of SoP
b. Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction over QW proceedings does not preclude Congress from enforcing its own prerogative of determining probable cause
for impeachment. Nor will it preclude Senate from exercising its constitutionally committed power of impeachment.
i. Because a QW doesn’t try a person’s culpability of impeachment offense, neither does a writ of QW conclusively pronounce such culpability
c. If there’s a faster way to get rid of her, why not take that option? Instead of the long and arduous process and compel the entire Legislative branch to
momentarily abandon their legislative duties to focus on impeachment for the possible removal of a public official, who at the outset, may clearly be
unqualified under existing laws and case law.
5. On Prescription
a. Prescription does not lie against the State
b. Previously, the one=year prescriptive period has been applied in cases where private individuals are asserting their right of office, unlike in the instant
case where no private individual claims title the Office of the CJ. Instead, it is the government itself which commenced the present petition for QW and
puts in issue the qualification of the person holding the highest position in the Judiciary.
c. “must commence such action” = therefore ordinary statutes of limitation, civil or penal, have no application to QW proceeding brought to enforce a
pubic right.
d. That prescription does not lie in this case can also be deduced from the very purpose of QW—w/c serves to end a continuous usurpation.
e. “The defect on Sereno’s appointment was not discernable, but was, on the contrary, deliberately rendered obscure.”
6. JBC’s sole function; PQ
a. The Court’s supervisory authority over the JBC includes ensuring that it complies with its own rules.
b. JBC’s duty to recommend or nominate, although calling for the exercise of discretion, is neither absolute nor unlimited, and is not automatically
equivalent to an exercise of police decision as to place, in wholesale, the JBC process beyond the scope of the Court’s supervisory and corrective
powers.
7. Whether filing of SALN is a constitutional and statutory requirement. – YES.
a. Sec. 17, Art. XI; RA 3019 and RA 6713 (“Failure to comply”; “prima facie evidence of unexplained wealth, w/c may result in dismissal.”
b. Sec. 11, RA 6713 –not only punishable by imprisonment &/^ fine but also DQ to hold a public office
8. Whether she failed to comply w/ SALN requirement
a. Sereno chronically failed to file her SALNs and thus violated the Constitution, the law, and the Code of Judicial Conduct.
b. Doblada case cannot apply because in that case, there was a letter of the head of the personnel of the branch of the court that the missing SALN exists
and was duly transmitted and received by the OCA as the repository agency. In this case, the existence of the SALNs and the fact of filing thereof were
never established.
c. The burden of proof in a QW proceeding is different when it is filed by the State in that the burden rests upon the respondent
d. Contrary to what Sereno contends, being on leave doesn’t exempt her from filing her SALN because it is not tantamount to serparation from
government service.
 e. During that time, compliance orders rule didn’t exist yet. Thus, the UP HRDO couldn’t have been expected to perform its ministerial duty of issuing
compliance orders to her.
f. inclusion in the shortlist of candidates for CJ doesn’t negate, nor supply her w/ the requisite proof of integrity. should’ve been DQ at the outset.
g. Her failure to submit the SALNs was not squarely addressed by the body.
i. Anent those that she DID file, she failed to properly and promptly file them, again in violation of the consti and law
1. Failure to file a truthful, complete and accurate SALN would likewise amount to dishonesty
a. The suspicious circumstances: ’96 SALN accomplished only in ’98; ’98 only filed in ’03; ’93 only notarized in ’97; ’05-’06
were not filed w/c is when she received the bulk of her fees from PIATCO cases, ’06 one was later on intended to be for
2010, gross amount from PIATCO cases were not reflected, suspicious increase of 2,700 in personal properties were seen in
her first 5 months as AJ
9. Sereno failed to submit the required SALNs to qualify for nomination pursuant to JBC rules. (JBC didn’t do away w/ the requirement, but required her to at least
be in substantial compliance but she failed to do so.)
a. Misrep: said she was in private practice after UP Law but in fact she was counsel for the government. Tax fraud for failure to truthfully declare her
income in her ITRs for ’07-’09, procured a brand new Toyota Land Cruiser (@L 5M), hired Ms. Macasaet w/o public bidding, misused 3M for hotel
accommodation at Shangri-La Boracay as the venue of 3rd ASEAN CJs meeting, issued a TRO in Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens v.
COMELEC contrary to SC’s internal rules, manipulated the disposition of the DOJ request to transfer the venue of the Maute cases outside of
Mindanao, ignored SC’s rules w/ respect to grant of survivorship benefits to spouses of deceased judges and Justices, manipulated the processes of the
JBC to exclude then SolGen no AJ Francis Jardeleza, by using confidential document
i. Sereno’s failure to submit to the JBC her SALNs for several years means that her integrity was not established at the time of her application
ii. Her ineligibitiy for lack of proven integrity cannot be cured by her nomination and subsequent appointment as CJ
1. Qualifications for public office must be possessed at the time of appointment and assumption of office and also during the officer’s
entire tenure as a continuing requirement.
2. While the Court surrenders discretionary appointing power to the President, the exercise of such discretion is subject to the non-
negotiable requirements that the appointee is qualified and all other legal requirements are satisfied, in the absence of which, the
appointment is susceptible to attack.
10. De facto or de jure? DE FACTO removable through QW
a. For lack of a Constitutional qualification, she is ineligible to hold the position of CJ and is merely holding a colorable right or title thereto. As such, she
has never attained the status of an impeachable official and her removal from the office, other than by impeachment, is justified. Remedy of course, is
QW.

DECISION: GRANTED. DQ-ed; ousted and excluded. Immediately executory.