Republic v.

Sereno

G.R. No. 237428

2018-05-11

Facts:

When the position of Chief Justice was declared vacant, the JBC required the incumbent Justices to
submit among other requirements all previous SALNs.

Thereafter, the JBC noted during its meeting that the respondent did not submit his SALNs for a period
of 10 years, i. e. from 1986 to 2006.

On July 27, 2012, the JBC then proceeded to interview the candidates including the respondent listed as
applicant 14 with an opposite annotation that she had complete requirements and a note stating: “letter
7/23/2012 – considering that her government records in the academe are more than 15 years old, it is
reasonable to consider it infeasible to retrieve all those files.”

On August 24, 2012, Justice Sereno was appointed by President Aquino as Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court.

The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a petition for quo
warranto against the respondent on the ground that the she 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), 67 Article VIII of the Constitution.

The petitioner avers that: (1) that an action for quo warranto is the proper remedy to question the
validity of the respondent’s appointment; (2) the respondent’s failure to submit his SALN as required by
JBC disqualified her, at the outset, from being a candidate for the position of Chief Justice.

For the part of the respondent, she contended that: (1) the Chief Justice may be ousted from office only
by way of impeachment; (2) the petition is time-barred pursuant to Section 11, Rule 66 which provides
that it must be filed within one (1) year from when cause of ouster arose and not from the discovery of
the disqualification.

Issue:

Whether or not the Supreme Court's exercise of its jurisdiction over a quo warranto petition is not
violative of the doctrine of separation of powers.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court, through Justice Tijam, teaches us that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over an
action for quo warranto falls within the ambit of its judicial power to settle justiciable or actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.

Thus, there can be no constitutional crisis where the constitution itself provides the means and bases for
the resolution of the conflict and that an action for quo warranto falls within the ambit of its judicial
power to settle justiciable issues or actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable.