A.

QUALIFICATIONS
1. Supreme Court

Section 7. (1) No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower
collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A Member of the
Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age, and must have been for fifteen years or
more, a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.

(2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no person
may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of
the Philippine Bar.

(3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity,
and independence.

REPUBLIC V. MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Quo warranto, writ of inquiry.

G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018
It determines whether an
individual has the legal right to
hold the public office he or she
Facts:
occupies.

This is a Petition for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of quo warranto to declare
as void respondent's appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and to oust and
altogether exclude respondent therefrom.

On August 30, 2017, or five years after respondent's appointment as Chief Justice,
an impeachment complaint was filed by Atty. Larry Gadon (Atty. Gadon) against respondent
with the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives (House Committee on
Justice) for culpable violation of the Constitution, corruption, high crimes, and betrayal of
public trust. The complaint also alleged that respondent failed to make truthful declarations
in her SALNs.

During the impeachment hearings of the House, it was revealed that respondent
purportedly failed to file her SALNs while she was member of the faculty of the U.P. College
of Law and that she filed her SALN only for the years 1998, 2002 and 2006.

The Republic seeks to oust respondent from her position as Chief Justice on the
ground that the latter failed to show that she is person of proven integrity which is an
indispensable qualification for membership in the Judiciary under Section 7(3), Article VIII
of the Constitution. the Republic contends that respondent's failure to submit her SALNs as
required by the JBC disqualifies her, at the outset, from being candidate for the position of
Chief Justice. Lacking her SALNs, respondent has not proven her integrity which is
requirement under the Constitution. The Republic thus concludes that since respondent is
ineligible for the position of Chief Justice for lack of proven integrity, she has no right to
hold office and may therefore be ousted via quo warranto. Republic justifies its resort to the
unconventional method of quo warranto by stating that it seeks respondent's ouster, not on
account of commission of impeachable offenses, but because of her ineligibility to assume
the position of Chief Justice.

Respondent argues that, on the strength of Section 2, Article XI of the 1987

Constitution, the Chief Justice may be ousted from office only by impeachment.

Respondent argues that the present petition is time-barred as Section 11, Rule 66
provides that petition for quo warranto must be filed within one (1) year from the "cause of
ouster" and not from the "discovery" of the disqualification. Moreover, respondent stresses
that the failure to file SALNs or to submit the same to the JBC has no bearing on one's
integrity. The submission of SALNs was simply among the additional documents which the
JBC had required of the applicants for the position of Chief Justice. It is respondent's
position that the non-filing of SALN is not ground for disqualification unless the same was
already the subject of pending criminal or administrative case or if the applicant had already
been finally convicted for criminal offense involving said failure to file SALNs. In this case,
respondent points out that the JBC was made aware as early as July 20, 2012 that
respondent had not submitted to the JBC her SALNs as U.P. professor and yet none of them
invoked Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 or the "integrity rule."
 Respondent likewise contends that the issue of whether an applicant for the position
of Chief Justice is person of "proven integrity" is question "constitutionally committed to the
JBC" and is therefore political question which only the JBC could answer, and it did so in the
affirmative when it included respondent's name in the shortlist of nominees for the position
of Chief Justice.

The Republic cites respondent's gross misrepresentation in stating that her reason
for non-submission of SALNs was because she could no longer retrieve all of such SALNs.
According to the Republic, respondent's allegation seems to imply that she did file her
SALNs when the Certifications from the U.P. and the Ombudsman state otherwise.

Integrity, the Republic claims, is simply faithful adherence to the law, and the filing
of SALN is qualification implied from the requirement of integrity. 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. There is no need to allege or prove graft and corruption in
order to prove an aspiring magistrate's lack of integrity.

Respondent maintains that whether respondent was person of "proven integrity"

when she applied for the position of Chief Justice is political question outside the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, which only the JBC and the President as the appointing authority
could determine. She avers that the application of the political question doctrine is not
confined to the President or Congress, as the Republic supposedly argues, but extends to
other government departments or officers exercising discretionary powers, such as the JBC
which uses its wisdom and discretion in determining whether an applicant to the Judiciary is
person of "proven" integrity.

Issue:

1. Whether respondent is eligible for the position of Chief Justice:

a. Whether the determination of candidate's eligibility for nomination is the sole

and exclusive function of the JBC and whether such determination partakes of
the character of political question outside the Court's supervisory and review
powers;

b. Whether respondent failed to file her SALNs as mandated by the Constitution

and required by the law and its implementing rules and regulations; and if so,
whether the failure to file SALNs voids the nomination and appointment of
respondent as Chief Justice;

c. Whether respondent failed to comply with the submission of SALNs as

required by the JBC; and if so, whether the failure to submit SALNs to the JBC
voids the nomination and appointment of respondent as Chief Justice;

d. In case of finding that respondent is ineligible to hold the position of Chief

Justice, whether the subsequent nomination by the JBC and the appointment
by the President cured such ineligibility.

Ruling:

1. Respondent is INELIGIBLE as Candidate and Nominee for the Position of

Chief Justice.

a. NO. Qualifications under the Constitution cannot be waived or

bargained away by the JBC

In interpreting the power of the Court vis-a-vis the power of the JBC, it is
consistently held that the Court’s supervisory power consists of seeing to it that the
JBC complies with its own rules and procedures. Furthermore, while a certain leeway
must be given to the JBC in screening aspiring magistrates, the same does not give
it an unbridled discretion to ignore Constitutional and legal requirements. The
question of whether or not a nominee possesses the requisite qualifications is
determined based on facts and therefore does not depend on, nor call for, the
exercise of discretion on the part of the nominating body. Proceeding from this,
qualifications under the Constitution cannot be waived or bargained away by the JBC
— one such qualification is the requirement of possession of proven integrity
required not only in the Constitution, but also mentioned in administrative cases, in
the Canons of the New Code of Judicial Conduct as a continuing requirement, the
Code of Professional Integrity, and in the JBC009 Rules.

b. YES. Compliance with the Constitutional and statutory requirement of

filing of SALN intimately relates to person's integrity.

Compliance with the Constitutional and statutory requirement of filing of SALN

intimately relates to a person’s integrity. Contrary to Respondent’s postulation that
the filing of SALN bears no relation to the requirement of integrity, the filing of SALN
itself is a Constitutional and statutory requirement, under Section 17, Article XI of
the Constitution, R.A. No. 3019, and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees. Faithful compliance with the requirement of the filing
of SALN is rendered even more exacting when the public official concerned is a
member of the Judiciary.

Compliance with the SALN requirement indubitably reflects on a person’s

integrity. To be of proven integrity, as required by qualifications under the
Constitution, means that the applicant must have established a steadfast adherence
to moral and ethical principles. In this line, failure to file the SALN is clearly a
violation of the law. The offense is penal in character and is a clear breach of the
ethical standards set for public officials and employees. It disregards the requirement
of transparency as a deterrent to graft and corruption. For these reasons, a public
official who has failed to comply with the requirement of filing the SALN cannot be
said to be of proven integrity and the Court may consider him/her disqualified from
holding public office. Respondent’s argument that failure to file SALN does not
negate integrity does not persuade. Whether or not Respondent accumulated
unexplained wealth is not in issue at this time, but whether she, in the first place,
complied with the mandatory requirement of filing of SALNs.

Respondent chronically failed to file her SALNs and thus violated the Constitution,
the law and the Code of Judicial Conduct. A member of the Judiciary who commits
such violations cannot be deemed to be a person of proven integrity. Respondent
could have easily dispelled doubts as to the filing or non-filing of the unaccounted
SALNs by presenting them before the Court. Yet, Respondent opted to withhold such
information or such evidence, if at all, for no clear reason. Her defenses do not lie:
1) The Doblada doctrine does not persuade because in that case Doblada was able to
present contrary proof that the missing SALNs were, in fact, transmitted to the OCA,
thus rendering inaccurate the OCA report that she did not file SALNs for a number of
years, as opposed to the present case where no proof of existence and filing were
presented; 2) Being on leave from government service is not equivalent to
separation from service such that she was still required to submit SALNs during her
leave; 3) While Respondent is not required by law to keep a record of her SALNs,
logic dictates that she should have obtained a certification to attest to the fact of
filing; 4) That UP HRDO never asked Respondent to comply with the SALN laws holds
no water as the duty to comply with such is incumbent with the Respondent, and
because there was no duty for the UP HRDO to order compliance under the rules
implemented at that time; 5) That Respondent’s compliance with the SALN
requirement was reflected in the matrix of requirements and shortlist prepared by
the JBC is dispelled by the fact that the appointment goes into her qualifications
which were mistakenly believed to be present, and that she should have been
disqualified at the outset.

Respondent failed to properly and promptly file her SALNs, again in violation of
the Constitutional and statutory requirements. The SALNs filed by Respondent
covering her years of government service in U.P. appear to have been executed and
filed under suspicious circumstances; her SALNs filed with the UPHRDO were either
belatedly filed or belatedly notarized, while SALNs filed as Chief Justice were also
attended by irregularities. This puts in question the truthfulness of such SALNs, and
would amount to dishonesty if attended by malicious intent to conceal the truth or to
make false statements.

c. YES.

The JBC required the submission of at least ten SALNs from those applicants who
are incumbent Associate Justices, absent which, the applicant ought not to have
been interviewed, much less been considered for nomination. The established and
undisputed fact is Respondent failed to submit the required number of SALNs in
violation of the rules set by the JBC itself during the process of nomination. The JBC
determined that she did not submit her SALNs from 1986 to 2006 and that, as
remarked by Senator Escudero, the filing thereof during those years was already
required. There was no indication that the JBC deemed the three SALNs (for the
years 2009, 2010 and 2011) submitted by Respondent for her 20 years as a
professor in the U.P. College of Law and two years as Justice, as substantial
compliance. Respondent was specifically singled out from the rest of the applicants
for having failed to submit a single piece of SALN for her years of service in the U.P.
College of Law. In the end, it appears that the JBC En Banc decided to require only
the submission of the past ten (10) SALNs, or from 2001-2011, for applicants to the
Chief Justice position. It is clear that the JBC En Banc did not do away with the
requirement of submission of SALNs, only that substantial compliance therewith, i.e.,
the submission of the SALNs for the immediately preceding 10 years instead of all
SALNs, was deemed sufficient. Records clearly show that the only remaining
applicant-incumbent Justice who was not determined by the JBC En Banc to have
substantially complied was Respondent, who submitted only three SALNs, i.e., 2009,
2010 and 2011, even after extensions of the deadline for the submission to do so.
Her justifications do not persuade. Contrary to her argument that the SALNs are old
and are infeasible to retrieve, the Republic was able to retrieve some of the SALNs
dating back to 1985. Furthermore, Respondent sought special treatment as having
complied with the submission of the SALN by submitting a Certificate of Clearance
issued by the U.P. HRDO. This clearance, however, hardly suffice as a substitute for
SALNs. Respondent curiously failed to mention that she, in fact, did not file several
SALNs during the course of her employment in U.P. Such failure to disclose a
material fact and the concealment thereof from the JBC betrays any claim of
integrity especially from a Member of the Supreme Court. For these reasons, the JBC
should no longer have considered Respondent for interview as it already required the
submission of, at least, the SALNs corresponding to the immediately preceding 10
years up to December 31, 2011.

Respondent’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. Contrary to
Respondent’s argument that failure to submit her SALNs to the JBC is not cause for
disqualification, the requirement to submit the SALNs, along with the waiver of bank
deposits, is not an empty requirement that may easily be dispensed with, but was
placed by the JBC itself for a reason — in order to allow the JBC to carry on its
mandate of recommending only applicants of high standards and who would be
unsusceptible to impeachment attacks due to inaccuracies in SALNs. Without 9
submission of such requirement, the JBC and the public are without opportunity to
measure the candidate’s fitness or propensity to commit corruption or dishonesty.
Respondent’s failure to submit her SALNs to the JBC means that she was not able to
prove her integrity at the time of her application as Chief Justice.

d. NO. Respondent’s ineligibility for lack of proven integrity cannot be

cured by her nomination and subsequent appointment as Chief
Justice.

As the qualification of proven integrity goes into the barest standards set forth
under the Constitution to qualify as a Member of the Court, the subsequent
nomination and appointment to the position will not qualify an otherwise excluded
candidate. In other words, the inclusion of Respondent in the shortlist of nominees
submitted to the President cannot override the minimum Constitutional
qualifications. The Court has ample jurisdiction to void the JBC nomination without
the necessity of impleading the JBC as the Court can take judicial notice of the
explanations from the JBC members and the Office of the Executive Officer (OEO), as
regards the circumstances relative to the selection and nomination of Respondent
 submitted to this Court. Neither will the President’s act of appointment cause to
qualify Respondent. The action of the JBC, particularly that of the Secretary of
Justice as ex-officio member, is reflective of the action of the President. Such as
when the JBC mistakenly or wrongfully accepted and nominated Respondent, the
President, through his alter egos in the JBC, commits the same mistake and the
President’s subsequent act of appointing Respondent cannot have any curative
effect. 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. The Court also took into account,
while conceding that the petition is not an administrative case or an inquiry into tax
evasion against her, that Respondent’s disposition to commit deliberate acts and
omissions demonstrating dishonesty and lack of forthrightness are discordant with
any claim of integrity.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Quo warranto is GRANTED. Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A.
Sereno is found DISQUALIFIED from and is hereby adjudged GUILTY of UNLAWFULLY
HOLDING and EXERCISING the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE. Accordingly,
Respondent Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno is OUSTED and EXCLUDED therefrom.

The position of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is declared vacant and the Judicial
and Bar Council is directed to commence the application and nomination process.

This Decision is immediately executory without need of further action from the Court.

Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno is ordered to SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days
from receipt hereof why she should not be sanctioned for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct for transgressing the sub judice rule and for
casting aspersions and ill motives to the Members of the Supreme Court.