DIGEST/ CHARLES ADRIANNE GILAGA. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA VS. MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

 

RULE 66/QOU WARRANTO/[ G.R. No. 237428, June 19, 2018 ] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA, PETITIONER, VS. MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO, RESPONDENT.

 

 G.R. No. 237428,                                                                                                              June 19, 2018

 

Facts:

This resolution treats of the following motions: 1. Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno's (respondent) Ad Cautelam Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Decision. 2. Respondent's Ad Cautelam Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply (to the Show Cause Order dated 11 May 2018).

 

                Sereno claims denial of due process because her case was allegedly not heard by an impartial tribunal. She reiterates that the six (6) Justices ought to have inhibited themselves on the grounds of actual bias, of having personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts, and of having acted as a material witness in the matter in controversy.

                She reiterates her arguments that the Court is without jurisdiction to oust an impeachable officer through quo warranto; that the official acts of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) and the President involves political questions that cannot be annulled absent any allegation of grave abuse of discretion; that the petition for quo warranto is time-barred; and that respondent was and is a person of proven integrity.

                By way of Comment, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), seeks a denial of respondent's motion for reconsideration for being pro forma. In any case, the OSG argues that respondent's motion lacks merit as there was no denial of due process and that quo warranto is the appropriate remedy to oust an ineligible impeachable officer. The OSG adds that the issue of whether respondent is a person of proven integrity is justiciable considering that the decision-making powers of the JBC are limited by judicially discoverable standards. Undeviating from its position, the OSG maintains that the petition is not time-barred as Section II, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court does not apply to the State and that the peculiar circumstances of the instant case preclude the strict application of the prescriptive period. The OSG reiterates that respondent's repeated failure to file her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) and her non-submission thereof to the JBC which the latter required to prove the integrity of an applicant affect respondent's integrity. The OSG concludes that respondent, not having possessed of proven integrity, failed to meet the constitutional requirement for appointment to the Judiciary.

 Issues:
                1.) WON there was denial of due process?

                2.) WON the court has jurisdiction to oust an impeachable officer through quo warranto

                3.) WON the petition for quo warranto is time barred?

                4.) WON respondent’s failure to file SALNs means she has no integrity.

 

 

Ruling:

No Denial of Due process

                Respondent is seriously in error for claiming denial of due process. Respondent refuses to recognize the Court's jurisdiction over the subject matter and over her person on the ground that respondent, as a purported impeachable official, can only be removed exclusively by impeachment.

She asked relief from the Court and was in fact heard by the Court, and yet she claims to have been denied of due process. She repeatedly discussed the supposed merits of her opposition to the present quo warranto petition in various social and traditional media, and yet she claims denial of due process.

Respondent also harps on the alleged bias on the part of the six (6) Justices and that supposedly, their failure to inhibit themselves from deciding the instant petition amounts to a denial of due process.

Respondent's contentions were merely a rehash of the issues already taken into consideration and properly resolved by the Court. To reiterate, mere imputation of bias or partiality is not enough ground for inhibition, especially when the charge is without basis. Acts or conduct clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice has to be shown.

The Court has Jurisdiction

The Court reaffirms its authority to decide the instant quo warranto action. This authority is expressly conferred on the Supreme Court by the Constitution under Section 5, Article VIII.

As the Court pointed out in its Decision, this is not the first time the Court took cognizance of a quo warranto petition against an impeachable officer. In the consolidated cases of Estrada v. Macapagal-Arroyo and Estrada v. Desierto, the Court assumed jurisdiction over a quo warranto petition that challenged Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's title to the presidency.

     A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine a person's right or title to a public office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment. It is the proper action to inquire into a public officer's eligibility or the validity of his appointment. Under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, a quo warranto proceeding involves a judicial determination of the right to the use or exercise of the office.

It is not time barred

                Court is not abolishing the limitation set by the rules in instituting a petition for quo warranto. The one-year presciptive period under Section 11, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court still stands. However, for reasons explained above and in the main Decision, this Court made distinctions as to when such prescriptive period applies, to wit: (1) when filed by the State at its own instance, through the Solicitor General, prescription shall not apply. This, of course, does not equate to a blanket authority given to the Solicitor General to indiscriminately file baseless quo warranto actions in disregard of the constitutionally-protected rights of individuals; (2) when filed by the Solicitor General or public prosecutor at the request and upon relation of another person, with leave of court, prescription shall apply except when established jurisprudential exceptions are present; and (3) when filed by an individual in his or her own name, prescription shall apply, except when established jurisprudential exceptions are present. In fine, Our pronouncement in the assailed Decision as to this matter explained that certain circumstances preclude the absolute and strict application of the prescriptive period provided under the rules in filing a petition for quo warranto.

                Thus, this Court finds no reason to reverse its ruling that an action for quo warranto is imprescriptible if brought by the State at its own instance, as in the instant case.

 

Failure to file SALNs means she has no integrity

Respondent’s argument, however, dangerously disregards that the filing of SALN is not only a requirement under the law, but a positive duty required from every public officer or employee, first and foremost by the Constitution. As such, offenses against the SALN laws are not ordinary offenses but violations of a duty which every public officer and employee owes to the State and the Constitution. In other words, the violation of SALN laws, by itself, defeats any claim of integrity as it is inherently immoral to violate the will of the legislature and to violate the Constitution.

Integrity, at its minimum, entails compliance with the law. In sum, respondent has not presented any convincing ground that would merit a modification or reversal of Our May 11, 2018 Decision. Respondent, at the time of her application, lacked proven integrity on account of her failure to file a substantial number of SALNs and also, her failure to submit the required SALNs to the JBC during her application for the position...”