Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

En Banc

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Special Civil Action

REPRESENTED BY SOLICITOR
GENERAL VALDA For
Petitioner,
Petition for Writ of
Quo Warranto
-versus-

MARY GOLD
Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------x

TRIAL MEMORANDUM

Petitioner REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by

Solicitor General Valda, respectfully submits this Trial Memorandum, as
follows:

NARRATION OF FACTS

1. Mary Gold was appointed as Chief Justice on June 12, 2012 at the age
of 45. Prior to her service to judiciary, CJ Mary Gold rendered a
decade long service in her alma mater Philippine National
University, a state university.

2. On March 27, 2018, Solicitor General Valda, for the Republic of the
Philippines and with the approval of President Dugong, filed a
petition for Quo Warranto before this Honorable Court.

ISSUES

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT HAS JURISDICTION

TO HEAR THE PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO.
2. WHETER OR NOT QUO WARRANTO IS THE PROPER REMEDY TO
REMOVE AN INCUMBENT MEMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT FROM
OFFICE.

3. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO WAS

FILED ON TIME.

4. WHETHER OR NOT PRIOR TO APPOINTMENT IN JUDICIARY,

SHOULD AN APPLICANT SUBMIT HER STATEMENT OF ASSETS,
LIABILITIES AND NET WORT (SALN) FOR ALL HER YEARS OF
SERVICE IN THE GOVERNMENT.

5. WHETHER OR NOT FAILURE TO SUBMIT ALL THE SALN DURING

THE SERVICE IN THE GOVERNMENT IS AN INDICATIVE OF ONE’S
LACK OF INTEGRITY.

6. WHETHER OR NOT JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC) HAVE THE

POWER TO WAIVE ITS REQUIREMENT OF SUBMISSION OF ALL
SALNS OF AN APPLICANT TO THE JUDICIARY.

ARGUMENTS

The Honorable Court has jurisdiction

over the Petition for Quo Warranto.

Quo Warranto is an action for the usurpation of a public office,

position or franchise may be commenced by a verified petition
brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against:
(a) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully
holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise;
(b) A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the
provision of law, constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his
office; or
(c) An association which acts as a corporation within the
Philippines without being legally incorporated or without
lawful authority so to act.1
This action can be brought only in the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or in the Regional Trial Court exercising
jurisdiction over the territorial area where the respondent or any
of the respondents resides, but when the Solicitor General
commences the action, it may be brought in a Regional Trial Court in
the City of Manila, in the Court of Appeals, or in the Supreme
Court.2

1
Sec 1, Rule 66, Revised Rules of Court.
2
Sec 6, Rule 66, Revised Rules of Court.
 Public Office is the right, authority, and duty created and
conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or
enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is
invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the
government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public.3

The elements of public office are:

1. Created by Constitution or by law or by some body or
agency to which the power to create the office has been
delegated;
2. Invested with Authority to exercise some portion of the
sovereign power of the State;
3. The powers conferred and the duties to be discharged
must be defined directly or impliedly by the Legislature or
through legislative authority;
4. Duties are performed independently without control
unless those of a subordinate;
5. Continuing and permanent.4

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is a position created by the

Constitution. A Chief Justice is vested with authority to exercise, as
the head of judiciary, the judicial power, a portion of a sovereign
power of the State. The powers conferred is vested by law. It is
performed independently, continuing and permanent.

All the elements are present, hence a Chief Justice is a public

officer, removable by quo warranto in which Supreme Court has
jurisdiction.

Quo Warranto is a proper remedy

to remove an incumbent member of
Supreme Court from office.

Consolidated in above discussion.

Other key Points:

1. Rule on hierarchy of courts and exceptions (e.g. matter of
transcendental importance)

The Petition for Quo Warranto was

filed on time.

Nothing contained in this Rule (Rule 66) shall be construed to

authorize an action against a public officer or employee for his ouster
3
Fernandez v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 116418, March 7, 1995
4
Tejada v. Domingo, G.R. No. 91860, Jan. 13, 1992
 from office unless the same be commenced within one (1) year after
the cause of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold
such office or position, arose; nor to authorize an action for
damages in accordance with the provisions of the next preceding
section unless the same be commenced within one (1) year after
the entry of the judgment establishing the petitioner’s right to
the office in question.5

(Jurisprudence :Prescription against the state.)

The provision against prescription does not apply against the state
since (Jurisprudence: the state is not bound by the acts of its agents.).

Hence, the right of the State to commence action for Quo Warranto
does not prescribed.

Prior to appointment in judiciary,

an applicant should submit her
SALN for all her years of service
in the government.

Key points:
1. Section 8 of RA 6713.
2. Verba Legis
3. Intention of the law: to give effect of its purpose.

Failure to submit all the SALN

during the service is an indicative
of one’s lack of integrity.

A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven

competence, integrity, probity, and independence.6

Key Points:
1. Duty to inform the appointing authority all the circumstances that
will help to assess the candidate to a judicial position. That is,
whether she is a person of a proven competence, integrity, probity,
and independence.

JBC have no power to waive its

requirement of submission of all
5
Sec 11, Rule 66, Revised Rules of Court.
6
Par.3 , Sec. 7, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution
 SALNs of an applicant to the
judiciary.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the accused through his counsel, respectfully prayed

for this Honorable Court to issue a Writ of Quo Warranto and order the
respondent to immediately vacant her present office.
Petitioner further prays for such other reliefs as may be just and
equitable in the premises.

Respectfully submitted.

Manila, May 14, 2018.

Solicitor General Valda

Office of the Solicitor General
Representing the Petitioner
Makati City

Copy furnished:

Atty. No Case
Counsel for Respondent
Manila

Clerk of Court
Supreme Court – Manila

Greetings:
 Kindly submit this Petition for Quo Warranto for the kind
consideration of this Honorable Court.

EXPLANATION

The filing and service of this Petition for Quo Warranto is being done
by registered mail due to lack of sufficient personnel to effect personal
filing and service.

Solicitor General Valda

Office of the Solicitor General