REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

 Whoever walks in
integrity and with
moral character
REPRESENTED BY SOLICITOR GENERAL
walks securely, but
he who takes JOSE C. CALIDA, PETITIONER,
crooked way will
be discovered and
punished  VS.
-The Holy Bible,
Proverbs 10:9
MARIA LOURDES SERENO, RESPONDENT

[ G . R . N O . 2 3 7 4 2 8 , M AY 1 1 , 2 0 1 8 ]  
FACTS:
• In this unprecedented case for quo warranto against the incumbent Chief
Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, the Republic entreats the Court to declare
Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (respondent) ineligible to hold the highest post in
the Judiciary for failing to regularly disclose her assets, liabilities and net worth
as a member of the career service prior to her appointment as an Associate
Justice, and later as Chief Justice, of the Supreme Court, in violation of the
Constitution, the Anti-Graft Law, and the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees. The Republic accordingly seeks
the nullification of respondent Sereno’s appointment, asserting that her failure
to file the required disclosures and her failure to submit the same to the Judicial
and Bar Council show that she is not possessed of "proven integrity" demanded
of every aspirant to the Judiciary.
FACTS:
 Maria Lourdes Sereno served as member of the faculty of UP – College of Law for 20 years from
November 1986 until her resignation on June 2006. While being employed at the UP College of
Law, Sereno was concurrently employed as legal counsel of the Republic in two International
Arbitrations.

 She then submitted her application for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in
July 2010.

 In support of her application as Associate Justice, respondent submitted to the Office of

Recruitment Selection and Nomination (ORSN) of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) her SALN
for the year 2006.
 YEAR SALN ought to be filed SALN Actually filed
SALN as of Nov. 1986 (entry SALN ending Dec. 31, 1986/ No
November 1986
SALN) record as November 1986
1987 SALN ending Dec. 31, 1986 No record FACTS:
1988 SALN ending Dec. 31, 1987 No Record
1989 SALN ending Dec. 31, 1988 No Record
SALN ending Dec 31, 1989 (sourced Despite having been employed at the U.P. College of
1990 SALN ending Dec. 31, 1989
from UP Drawers/filing cabinets)
Law from November 1986 to June 1, 2006, the
SALN ending Dec. 31, 1998 (filed
1999 SALN ending Dec. 31, 1998 with the Ombudsman, Dec. 16, record of the U.P. HRDO only contains the Statement
2003) of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for
2000 SALN ending Dec. 31, 1999 No record 1985, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and
2001 SALN ending Dec. 31, 2000 No Record 2002, filed by respondent. On the other hand, the
2002 SALN ending Dec. 31, 2001 No Record records of the Central Records Division of the Office
2004 SALN ending Dec. 31, 2003 No Record of the Ombudsman yields that there is no SALN filed
2005 SALN ending Dec. 31, 2004 No Record by respondent for calendar years 1999 to 2009 except
2006 SALN ending Dec. 31, 2005 No Record for the SALN ending December 1998 which was
No Record of Exit SALN as of June subscribed only in August 2003 and transmitted by
June 1, 2006 Exit SALN as of June 1, 2006
2006 the U.P. HRDO to the Ombudsman only on
Alleged break in government service but was engaged as counsel for Republic from June December 16, 2003.
2006-2009.
SALN Ending in Dec. 31, 2009 but
SALN as of August 16, 2010 (re filed with Office of Clerk of Court
August 16, 2010
Entry) En Banc on July 22, 2012/ No
Record or Re-entry SALN
 FACTS:
July 2010 August 13, 2010 August 16, 2010

• Sereno accepted several • Sereno was appointed by • Sereno took oath of office
nominations and submitted her President Benigno Aquino as
application for Associate Associate Justice
Justice
In 2012, the position for Chief Justice was declared vacant and JBC announced opening for
application and recommendation positions of Chief Justice.
June 4, 2012 July 6, 2012 July 20, 2012 July 23, 2012
• JBC En Banc came up with • JBC special EN Banc • Sereno responded through a
• JBC announced to submit
22 candidates meeting deliberation for transmittal letter saying
requirements for Chief candidates with incomplete “considering that most of her
Justice requirements
• Sereno was included and government records in the
Sworn Statement of Assets, • “10. Justice Maria Lourdes P. academe are more than 15
Liabilities, and Net worth public Interview was
scheduled from July 24-27, A. Sereno The Executive years old, it is reasonable to
(SALN): Officer informed the Council consider it infeasible to
 for those in the government: all 2012
that she had not submitted retrieve all of those files.”
previous SALNs (up to 31
December 2011) her SALNs for a period of
• Set the deadline for ten (10) years, that is, from
for those from the private sector: submission of documentary
SALN as of 31 December 2011 1986 to 2006.
requirements to July 17, • OSRN through Atty. Pascual
Waiver in favor of the JBC 2012
of the confidentiality of local made an inquiry as to
and foreign bank accounts Sereno’s SALN covered
under the Bank Secrecy Law during her employment with
and Foreign Currency UP.
Deposits Act.
FACTS:
July 24, 2012 August 6, 2012 August 13, 2012 August 24, 2012
• ORSN through Atty. • ORSN shortlisted 20 • JBC voted who would be • Sereno was appointed
Pascual prepared a candidates which included in the shortlist and by President Benigno
reported with included Sereno. transmitted to the President its Aquino III as Chief
annotation that Sereno • Opposite respondent's nominations for Chief Justice Justice of the Supreme
had “COMPLETE name was an as follows: Court
REQUIREMENTS” enumeration of the
and a note stating SALNs she submitted 1.Carpio, Antonio
"Letter 7/23/12 - and an excerpt from 2.Abad, Roberto
considering that her her July 23, 2012 letter 3.Brion, Arturo
government records in that "considering that
[respondent's] 4.Jardaleza, Francis
the academe are more
than 15 years old, it is government records in 5.Sereno, Maria Lourdes
reasonable to consider the academe are more 6.Zamora, Ronalda
it infeasible to retrieve than 15 years old, it is 7.Leonardo-De Castro, Teresita
all those files." reasonable to consider 8.Villanueva, Cesar
• JBC then proceeded it infeasible to retrieve
with the interview. all those files."
FACTS:
 On August 30, 2017, five years after Sereno’s appointment as Chief Justice, an impeachment complaint was
filed by Atty. Lary Gadon against Sereno with the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives for
culpable violation of the Constitution, corruption, high crimes, and betrayal of public trust. The complaint
also alleged that respondent failed to make truthful declaration of her SALNs.

 Impeachment has been endorsed by members of the House and thereafter found to be sufficient in form and
substance. Sereno filed her answer to the impeachment complaint. After the filing of the reply and the
rejoinder, the House Committee on Justice conducted several hearings on the determination of probable
cause, the last of which was held on February 27, 2018.

 During these hearings, it was revealed that Sereno purportedly failed to file her SALNs while she was a
member of the faculty of the U.P. College of Law
FACTS:
 During the hearing on February 7, 2018 of the House Committee on Justice, Justice Peralta, as a resource
person being then the acting ex-officio Chairman of the JBC, further claimed that during the JBC deliberations
in 2012, he was not made aware that respondent submitted incomplete SALNs nor that respondent's letter
dated July 23, 2012 to the JBC was ever deliberated upon. This was confirmed by Atty. Fernan-Cayosa; by
Atty. Capacite, who emphasized that based on the rubber stamp received, only the offices of the JBC regular
members, the ORSN and the OEO were furnished copies of the letter; and by Atty. Pascual on the basis of the
transmittal-letter.

  The foregoing sworn declarations made during the hearings before the House Committee on Justice spawned
two relevant incidents:
 one, the proposal of the House Committee for this Court to investigate on the proceedings of the JBC
relative to the nomination of respondent as Chief Justice which is now presently docketed as A.M. No.
17-11-12 and A.M. No. 17-11-17-SC; and
 two, the Letter dated February 21, 2018 of Atty. Eligio Mallari to the OSG requesting that the latter, in
representation of the Republic, initiate quo warranto proceeding against respondent.
 R E P UB L IC ’ S C A S E
 OSG claims that quo warranto is the proper
remedy to question the validity of Sereno’s
appointment;
 This instant petition
is filed within the
reglementary period;
 Republic also argues that quo warranto is the
available remedy even against impeachable
officers;
 Republic seeks to oust Sereno as Chief Justice on
the ground that the latter failed to show that she is
a person with integrity for failure to fulfill JBC’s
requirement of filling required SALN.
 Republic further justified its non-inclusion of JBC
since the petition is only disputes Sereno’s
eligibility and quo warranto is instituted only
against Sereno.
SERENO’S RESPONSE
 Sereno insists that she can be removed from office
only through impeachment and reiterates that instant
petition is time-barred.
 Sereno maintains that whether respondent was a
person of "proven integrity" when she applied for the
position of Chief Justice is a political question
outside the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
which only the JBC and the President as the
appointing authority could determine.
 She also argues that absent any challenge to her
nomination and appointment on the ground of grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the JBC and the
President, her appointment can no longer be
questioned.
 Sereno also stresses that the failure to file SALNs or
to submit the same to the JBC has no bearing on
one's integrity.
M OTIONS O F INT ERVE NTION A Joint Motion for Leave to Intervene and Admit
Another set of Intervenors filed a Motion for Leave to File Motion to Intervene and attached Comment-in-Intervention, movant
Opposition-in-Intervention, pursuant to Rule 19 of the Rules of Court claiming as intervenors seek to intervene in the present petition
citizens and taxpayers, they have the legal interest in the matter of Sereno’s ouster or
as citizens and taxpayers composed of:
removal. They are composed of: (ZARATE et.al)
(CAPISTRANO et. al)
1. BAYAN MUNA Representative (Rep.) Carlos Isagani Zarate;
1. former CEO of PAG-IBIG Fund, Zorayda
2. ACT Teachers Partylist Rep. Antonio Tinio Francisca Castro;
Amelia Capistrano Alonzo,
3. GABRIELA Women's Party Rep. Emerenciana De Jesus Arlene Brosas;
4. ANAKPAWIS Partylist Rep. Ariel Casilao; 2. peace human rights advocate Remedios Mapa
Suplido,
5. KABATAAN Partylist Rep. Sarah Jane Elago;
6. Convenors and members of Movement Against Tyranny (MAT), namely: 3. urban poor advocate Alicia Gentolia Murphy,

Francisco A. Alcuaz, Bonifacio P. Ilagan, Col. George A. Rabusa (Ret.); 4. Chairperson of Pambansang Kilusan ng mga
7. Former Senator Rene A.V. Saguisag; Samahang Magsasaka (PAKISAMA) Noland
Merida Penas,
8. Bishop Broderick S. Pabillo, D.D.;
9. Secretary Gen. of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) Renato M. Reyes, 5. Fr. Roberto Reyes, and

Jr.; 6. poet, feminist youth advocate Reyanne Joy P.

10. Member of MDD Youth (an Affiliate of Aksyon Demokratiko) Kaye Ann Librado

Legaspi; and
11. Secretary General of National Union of People's Lawyers Atty. Ephraim B.
M OTIONS O F INT ERVE NTION

IBP also filed its Motion for Leave to

Also seeking to intervene in the instant petition, Senators Leila M.
File and to Admit Attached Opposition-
De Lima (Senator De Lima) and Antonio F. Trillanes IV (Senator
in-Intervention as an organization of all
Trillanes) as citizens, taxpayers, and senators of the Republic, filed
Philippine lawyers, having the
Motion to Intervene and Admit Attached Opposition-In-
fundamental duty to uphold the
Intervention (Ad Cautelam) on April 4, 2018.
Constitution and an interest in ensuring
the validity of the appointments to the
They asserting that they possess clear legal interest anchored upon
Judiciary.
their duty and prerogatives as Senators-judges in an impeachment
trial and that they have the right and duty to uphold the
Constitution and to oppose government actions that are clearly and
patently unconstitutional.
INTERVENOR’S ARGUMENTS
The arguments of the Intervenors are mere reiteration of Sereno’s arguments based on the following grounds:

 The Court has no Jurisdiction over petition of Quo Warranto against the impeachable officer;

 Removal is exclusively by impeachment; the instant quo warranto case is aimed to deprive the Senate of its
jurisdiction as the impeachment tribunal.

 Sereno’s non-submission of complete SALNs, without more, does not have the effect of putting to question her
integrity as she did not conceal her SALNs.

 that it is not upon Sereno to prove to the JBC that she possessed integrity required by the Constitution, rather, the
post fell upon the JBC;

 The IBP further argues that the determination of whether respondent is of "proven integrity" belongs to the JBC
and which question the Court cannot inquire into without violating the separation of powers;

 the contention of the IBP that the petition is fatally flawed since the JBC never required the submission of Sereno’s
SALNs from 2001 to 2006;

 that the quo warranto petition is time-barred and is unavailable against an impeachable officer.
 I SSUE:

Whether or not intervenors in these

case can seek to intervene as citizens
and taxpayers and has legal interest
on the subject matter
 No. The intervenors in these case
cannot seek to intervene as citizens
and taxpayers and has no legal
interest on the subject matter
 RULE 19, Rules of Court

Sec. 1. Who may intervene. - A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the
success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected
by distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may,
with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the
intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and
whether or not the intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.
Intervention is a remedy by which third party, not originally impleaded in the proceedings, becomes a

litigant therein for a certain purpose: to enable the third party to protect or preserve a right or interest
that may be affected by those proceedings. It is not a matter of absolute right but may be permitted by
the court when the applicant shows facts which satisfy the requirements of the statute authorizing
Intervention.

Qualifications are:
 his possession of a legal interest in the matter in litigation or in the success of either of the parties;
 an interest against both;
 when he is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property
in the custody of the court or an officer thereof.
 As regards the legal interest as qualifying factor, this Court has ruled that such interest must be of a
direct and immediate character so that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal
operation of the judgment. The interest must be actual and material, a concern which is more than
mere curiosity, or academic or sentimental desire; it must not be indirect and contingent, indirect and
remote, conjectural, consequential or collateral.

 In the case at bar, herein movant-intervenors’ sentiments although noble, do not in any way come
within the purview of the concept of “legal interest” contemplated under the rules. They failed to
show any legal interest that in any way could “either gain or lose by the direct legal operation of the
judgment”. The interest is only out of the “sentimental desire” to uphold the rule of law.
 In this case, the movants-intervenors are neither individuals claiming to be
entitled to the questioned position nor are they the ones charged with the
usurpation thereof.

 Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the movants-intervenors, in

their respective Motions, presented nothing more than a mere reiteration
of Sereno’s allegations and arguments in her Comment.

 For these reasons, the Court in its resolution resolved to deny the motions
for intervention filed.