CRUZ, ARIZHA M.

OLCA211A037 | OLPADC01
CASE DIGEST

JUAN PONCE ENRILE VS SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. 213847
August 18, 2015

FACT
The Office of the Ombudsman charged Enrile, 90 years of age, and several others with plunder
in the Sandiganbayan based on their purported involvement in the diversion and misuse of
appropriations under the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). Upon voluntary
surrender, Enrile filed his Motion for Detention at the PNP General Hospital, and his Motion to
Fix Bail. Enrile claims that before judgment of conviction, an accused is entitled to bail as matter
of right; that it is the duty and burden of the Prosecution to show clearly and conclusively that
Enrile comes under the exception and cannot be excluded from enjoying the right to bail; that the
Prosecution has failed to establish that Enrile, if convicted of plunder, is punishable by reclusion
perpetual considering the presence of two mitigating circumstances his age and his voluntary
surrender; that the Prosecution has not come forward with proof showing that his guilt for the
crime of plunder is strong; and that he should not be considered a flight risk taking into account
that he is already over the age of 90, his medical condition, and his social standing. In its
Comment, the Ombudsman contends that Enrile’s right to bail is discretionary as he is charged
with a capital offense; that to be granted bail, it is mandatory that a bail hearing be conducted to
determine whether there is strong evidence of his guilt, or the lack of it; and that entitlement to
bail considers the imposable penalty, regardless of the attendant circumstances.
ISSUE: Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in denying Enrile’s Motion to Fix Bail.
RULING: Yes, the Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan arbitrarily ignored the objective
of bail and unwarrantedly disregarded Sen. Enrile’s fragile health and advanced age. Bail is a
matter right and is safeguarded by the constitution, its purpose is to ensure the personal
appearance of the accused during trial or whenever the court requires and at the same time
recognizing the guarantee of due process which is the presumption of his innocence until proven
guilty. The Supreme Court further explained that Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused,
regardless of the crime charged should be allowed independently of the merits charged, provided
his continued incarceration is injurious to his health and endanger his life. Hence, the
Sandiganbayan failed to observe that if Sen. Enrile be granted the right to bail it will enable him
to have his medical condition be properly addressed and attended, which will then enable him to
attend trial therefore achieving the true purpose of bail.
 MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
G.R. No. 237428
June 19, 2018

Facts:

Sereno served as a member of the faculty of the University of the Philippines-College of Law
(UP HRDO). Out of her 20 years of employment, only nine (9) Statement of Assets, Liabilities,
and Net Worth (SALN) were on the records of UP HRDO. Even assuming that the one-year
period is applicable to the OSG, considering that SALNs are not published, the OSG will have
no other means by which to know the disqualification. Moreover, OSG maintains that the SC has
jurisdiction, citing A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC which 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 political question because
such issue may be resolved through the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, laws,
JBC rules, and Canons of Judicial Ethics. OSG seeks to oust Sereno from her position as CJ on
the ground that Sereno failed to show that she is a person of proven integrity which is an
indispensable qualification for membership in the Judiciary under Section 7(3), Article VIII of
the Constitution. According to the OSG, because OSG failed to fulfill the JBC requirement of
filing the complete SALNs, her integrity remains unproven. The failure to submit her SALN,
which is a legal obligation, should have disqualified Sereno from being a candidate; therefore,
she has no right to hold the office. Good faith cannot be considered as a defense since the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

Issue:

1. Whether Sereno failed to file her SALNs as mandated by the Constitution and
required by the law and its implementing rules and regulations. If answer is in the
affirmative,
2. whether the failure to submit SALNs to the Judicial Bar Council (JBC) voids the
nomination and appointment of Sereno as Chief Justice.

Ruling:

There is no basis for the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court to inhibit in the impeachment
proceedings against Justice Sereno. The impeachment proceedings before the House of
Representatives are merely inquisitorial. Simultaneous quo warranto proceeding and
impeachment proceeding is not forum shopping and is allowed. Impeachment is not an exclusive
remedy by which an impeachable official may be removed from office. The language of Article
XI of the Constitution does not foreclose a quo warranto action against impeachable officer. In
American jurisprudence, it has been held that impeachment ought not to be taken as a tacit
prohibition of removal by other methods. The President and Vice-President are both impeachable
officers and cannot be charged with disbarment. The proscription does not extend to actions
assailing the public officer's title or right to the office he or she occupies. If other causes of
removal are available, then other modes of ouster can likewise be availed. The Supreme Court's
exercise of its jurisdiction over a quo warranto petition is not violative of the doctrine of
separation of powers. It does not preclude Congress from enforcing its own prerogative of
determining probable cause for impeachment. And it will not preclude Senate from exercising its
constitutionally committed power of impeachment. The Philippines cannot fault the Republic for
questioning Sereno's qualification for office only. No prudent and just court would allow an
unqualified person to hold public office, much more the highest position in the Judiciary.
Because quo warranto serves to end a continuous usurpation, no statute of limitations applies to
the action. Supreme Court has supervisory and corrective powers over the Judicial and Bar
Council (JBC), as provided for in Article VIII of the Constitution. JBC's absolute autonomy from
the Court is therefore not what the Constitution contemplates. 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 legal requirements. "Integrity" is closely related to, or if not approximately
equated to an applicant's good reputation for honesty, incorruptibility, irreproachable conduct,
and fidelity to sound moral and ethical standards. The Court has always viewed integrity with a
goal of preserving the confidence of the litigants in the Judiciary. "Failure to comply" with the
law is a violation, a "prima facie evidence of unexplained wealth, which may result in the
dismissal from service of the public officer". Non-compliance with this requirement is not only
punishable by imprisonment and/or a fine, it may also result in disqualification to hold public
office.
Sereno argued that those who accept a public office do so cum onere, or with a burden, and are
considered as accepting its burdens and obligations, together with its benefits. The contention
that the mere non-filing does not affect her integrity does not persuade. Malice or criminal intent
is completely immaterial. In her 20 years of government service in UP Law, only 11 SALNs
have been filed. Sereno could have easily dispelled doubts as to the filing or non-filing of the
unaccounted SALNs by presenting them before the Court. The existence of these SALNs and the
fact of filing thereof were neither established by direct proof nor by mere inference. The
Republic was able to discharge its burden of proof with the certification from UP HRDO and
Ombudsman, and thus it becomes incumbent upon Sereno to discharge her burden of evidence.
Being on leave does not exempt her from filing her SALN because it is not tantamount to
separation from government service.
Sereno's inclusion in the shortlist of candidates for the position of Chief Justice does not negate,
nor supply her with the requisite proof of integrity. Failure to file a truthful, complete, and
accurate SALN would likewise amount to dishonesty if the same is attended by malicious intent
to conceal the truth or to make false statements. Sereno failed to submit a single piece of SALN
for her years of service in UP Law. The JBC required the submission of at least ten SALNs from
those applicants who are incumbent Justices. Sereno's failure to mention that she did not file
several SALNs during her employment in U.P. betrays any claim of integrity especially from a
Member of the Supreme Court. Dishonesty is classified as a grave offense the penalty of which
is dismissal from the service at the first infraction. Sereno misused government funds for hotel
accommodation at Shangri-La Boracay as the venue of the 3rd ASEAN Chief Justices meeting,
issued a TRO in Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines v. COMELEC
contrary to the Supreme Court's internal rules, manipulated the disposition of the DOJ request to
transfer the Maute cases outside of Mindanao. Qualification for public office must be possessed
at the time of appointment and during the officer's entire tenure as a continuing requirement.
Sereno's ineligibility for lack of proven integrity cannot be cured by her nomination and
subsequent appointment as Chief Justice. Neither will the President's act of appointment cause to
qualify Sereno. Chief Justice Sereno has been found guilty of unlawful holding and exercising
the office of Chief Justice. She has been suspended from all posts in the Supreme Court pending
the outcome of a quo warranto proceeding. The Judicial and Bar Council is directed to
commence the application and nomination process.