DIGEST/ FLORES MAY L. OROSA/ REPUBLIC VS SERENO (May 11, 2018)

 G.R. No. 237428

REPUBLIC of the PHILIPPINES, represented by SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA, Petitioner
vs.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO, Respondent

 

FACTS:

From 1986 to 2006, Sereno served as a member of the faculty of the University of the Philippines-College of Law. While being employed at the UP Law, or from October 2003 to 2006, Sereno was concurrently employed as legal counsel of the Republic in two international arbitrations known as the PIATCO cases, and a Deputy Commissioner of the Commissioner on Human Rights.

The Human Resources Development Office of UP (UP HRDO) certified that there was no record on Sereno’s file of any permission to engage in limited practice of profession. Moreover, 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. In a manifestation, she attached a copy of a tenth SALN, which she supposedly sourced from the “filing cabinets” or “drawers of UP”. The Ombudsman likewise had no record of any SALN filed by Sereno. The JBC has certified to the existence of one SALN. In sum, for 20 years of service, 11 SALNs were recovered.

On August 2010, Sereno was appointed as Associate Justice. On 2012, the position of Chief Justice was declared vacant, and the JBC directed the applicants to submit documents, among which are “all previous SALNs up to December 31, 2011” for those in the government and “SALN as of December 31, 2011” for those from the private sector. The JBC announcement further provided that “applicants with incomplete or out-of-date documentary requirements will not be interviewed or considered for nomination.” Sereno expressed in a letter to JBC that since she resigned from UP Law on 2006 and became a private practitioner, she was treated as coming from the private sector and only submitted three (3) SALNs or her SALNs from the time she became an Associate Justice. Sereno likewise added that “considering that most of her government records in the academe are more than 15 years old, it is reasonable to consider it infeasible to retrieve all of those files,” and that the clearance issued by UP HRDO and CSC should be taken in her favor. There was no record that the letter was deliberated upon. Despite this, on a report to the JBC, Sereno was said to have “complete requirements.” On August 2012, Sereno was appointed Chief Justice.

On August 2017, an impeachment complaint was filed by Atty. Larry Gadon against Sereno, alleging that Sereno failed to make truthful declarations in her SALNs. The House of Representatives proceeded to hear the case for determination of probable cause, and it was said that Justice Peralta, the chairman of the JBC then, was not made aware of the incomplete SALNs of Sereno. Other findings were made: such as pieces of jewelry amounting to P15,000, that were not declared on her 1990 SALN, but was declared in prior years’ and subsequent years’ SALNs, failure of her husband to sign one SALN, execution of the 1998 SALN only in 2003

On February 2018, Atty. Eligio Mallari wrote to the OSG, requesting that the latter, in representation of the Republic, initiate a quo warranto proceeding against Sereno. The OSG, invoking the Court’s original jurisdiction under Section 5(1), Article VIII of the Constitution in relation to the special civil action under Rule 66, the Republic, through the OSG filed the petition for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of quo warranto to declare as void Sereno’s appointment as CJ of the SC and to oust and altogether exclude Sereno therefrom.

Capistrano, Sen. De Lima, Sen. Trillianes, et. Al., intervened. Sereno then filed a Motion for Inhibition against AJ Bersamin, Peralta, Jardeleza, Tijam, and Leonardo-De Castro, imputing actual bias for having testified against her on the impeachment hearing before the House of Representatives.

OSG argues that the quo warranto is an available remedy because what is being sought is to question the validity of her appointment, while the impeachment complaint accuses her of committing culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust while in office, citing Funa v. Chairman Villar, Estrada v. Desierto and Nacionalista Party v. De Vera. OSG maintains that the phrase “may be removed from office” in Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution means that Members of the SC may be removed through modes other than impeachment.

OSG contends that it is seasonably filed within the one-year reglementary period under Section 11, Rule 66 since Sereno’s transgressions only came to light during the impeachment proceedings. Moreover, OSG claims that it has an imprescriptible right to bring a quo warranto petition under the maxim nullum tempus occurit regi (“no time runs against the king”) or prescription does not operate against the government. The State has a continuous interest in ensuring that those who partake of its sovereign powers are qualified. 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 (RA No. 3019) and Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA No. 6713) are special laws and are thus governed by the concept of malum prohibitum, wherein malice or criminal intent is completely immaterial.

Sereno contends that an impeachable officer may only be ousted through impeachment, citing Section 2 of Article XI of the Constitution, and Mayor Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan, Cuenca v. Hon. Fernan, In Re: First lndorsement from Hon. Gonzales, and Re: Complaint-Affidavit for Disbarment Against SAJ Antonio T. Carpio. Sereno contends that the clear intention of the framers of the Constitution was to create an exclusive category of public officers who can be removed only by impeachment and not otherwise. Impeachment was chosen as the method of removing certain high-ranking government officers to shield them from harassment suits that will prevent them from performing their functions which are vital to the continued operations of government. Sereno further argues that the word “may” on Section 2 of Article XI only qualifies the penalty imposable after the impeachment trial, i.e., removal from office. Sereno contends that the since the mode is wrong, the SC has no jurisdiction.

Sereno likewise argues that the cases cited by OSG is not in all fours with the present case because the President and the Vice President may, in fact, be removed by means other than impeachment on the basis of Section 4, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution vesting in the Court the power to be the “sole judge” of all contests relating to the qualifications of the President and the Vice-President. There is no such provision for other impeachable officers. Moreover, on the rest of the cases cited by the OSG, there is no mention that quo warranto may be allowed.

Sereno also argues that since a petition for quo warranto may be filed before the RTC, such would result to a conundrum because a judge of lower court would have effectively exercised disciplinary power and administrative supervision over an official of the Judiciary much higher in rank and is contrary to Sections 6 and 11, Article VIII of the Constitution which vests upon the SC disciplinary and administrative power over all courts and the personnel thereof.

Sereno likewise posits that if a Member of the SC can be ousted through quo warranto initiated by the OSG, the Congress’ “check” on the SC through impeachment would be rendered inutile.

Furthermore, Sereno argues that it is already time-barred. Section 11, Rule 66 provides that a 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, Sereno contends that the Court cannot presume that she failed to file her SALNs because as a public officer, she enjoys the presumption that her appointment to office was regular. OSG failed to overcome the presumption created by the certifications from UP HRDO that she had been cleared of all administrative responsibilities and charges. Her integrity is a political question which can only be decided by the JBC and the President.

Regarding her missing SALNs, Sereno contends that the fact that SALNs are missing cannot give rise to the inference that they are not filed. The fact that 11 SALNs were filed should give an inference to a pattern of filing, not of non-filing.

ISSUES:

1.  Whether the Court can assume jurisdiction and give due course to the instant petition for quo warranto.
2.  Whether Sereno may be the respondent in a quo warranto proceeding notwithstanding the fact that an impeachment complaint has already been filed with the House of Representatives.
3.  Whether Sereno, who is an impeachable officer, can be the respondent in a quo warranto proceeding.
4. Whether to take cognizance of the quo warranto proceeding is violative of the principle of separation of powers

RULING:

1.  Yes. A quo warranto petition is allowed against impeachable officials and SC has jurisdiction.

The SC have concurrent jurisdiction with the CA and RTC to issue the extraordinary writs, including quo warranto. A direct invocation of the SC’s original jurisdiction to issue such writs is allowed when there are special and important reasons therefor, and in this case, direct resort to SC is justified considering that the action is directed against the Chief Justice. Granting that the petition is likewise of transcendental importance and has far-reaching implications, the Court is empowered to exercise its power of judicial review. To exercise restraint in reviewing an impeachable officer’s appointment is a clear renunciation of a judicial duty. an outright dismissal of the petition based on speculation that Sereno will eventually be tried on impeachment is a clear abdication of the Court’s duty to settle actual controversy squarely presented before it. Quo warranto proceedings are essentially judicial in character – it calls for the exercise of the Supreme Court’s constitutional duty and power to decide cases and settle actual controversies. This constitutional duty cannot be abdicated or transferred in favor of, or in deference to, any other branch of the government including the Congress, even as it acts as an impeachment court through the Senate.

To differentiate from impeachment, quo warranto involves a judicial determination of the eligibility or validity of the election or appointment of a public official based on predetermined rules while impeachment is a political process to vindicate the violation of the public’s trust. In quo warranto proceedings referring to offices filled by appointment, what is determined is the legality of the appointment. The title to a public office may not be contested collaterally but only directly, by quo warranto proceedings. usurpation of a public office is treated as a public wrong and carries with it public interest, and as such, it shall be commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines through the Solicitor General or a public prosecutor. The SolGen is given permissible latitude within his legal authority in actions for quo warranto, circumscribed only by the national interest and the government policy on the matter at hand.

2. Yes. Simultaneous quo warranto proceeding and impeachment proceeding are not forum shopping and is allowed.

Quo warranto and impeachment may proceed independently of each other as these remedies are distinct as to (1) jurisdiction (2) grounds, (3) applicable rules pertaining to initiation, filing and dismissal, and (4) limitations. Forum shopping is the act of a litigant who repetitively availed of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues, either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court, to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable decision if not in one court, then in another. The test for determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought. The crux of the controversy in this quo warranto proceedings is the determination of whether or not Sereno legally holds the Chief Justice position to be considered as an impeachable officer in the first place. On the other hand, impeachment is for respondent’s prosecution for certain impeachable offenses. Simply put, while Sereno’s title to hold a public office is the issue in quo warranto proceedings, impeachment necessarily presupposes that Sereno legally holds the public office and thus, is an impeachable officer, the only issue being whether or not she committed impeachable offenses to warrant her removal from office.

Moreover, the reliefs sought are different. respondent in a quo warranto proceeding shall be adjudged to cease from holding a public office, which he/she is ineligible to hold. Moreover, impeachment, a conviction for the charges of impeachable offenses shall result to the removal of the respondent from the public office that he/she is legally holding. It is not legally possible to impeach or remove a person from an office that he/she, in the first place, does not and cannot legally hold or occupy.

Lastly, there can be no forum shopping because the impeachment proceedings before the House is not the impeachment case proper, since it is only a determination of probable cause. The impeachment case is yet to be initiated by the filing of the Articles of Impeachment before the Senate. Thus, at the moment, there is no pending impeachment case against Sereno. The process before the House is merely inquisitorial and is merely a means of discovering if a person may be reasonably charged with a crime.

3. Yes. Impeachment is not an exclusive remedy by which an invalidly appointed or invalidly elected impeachable official may be removed from office.

The language of Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution does not foreclose a quo warranto action against impeachable officers: “Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.” The provision uses the permissive term “may” which denote discretion and cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect, indicative of a mere possibility, an opportunity, or an option. In American jurisprudence, it has been held that “the express provision for removal by impeachment ought not to be taken as a tacit prohibition of removal by other methods when there are other adequate reasons to account for this express provision.”

The principle in case law is that during their incumbency, impeachable officers cannot be criminally prosecuted for an offense that carries with it the penalty of removal, and if they are required to be members of the Philippine Bar to qualify for their positions, they 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. Even the PET Rules expressly provide for the remedy of either an election protest or a petition for quo warranto to question the eligibility of the President and the Vice-President, both of whom are impeachable officers.

Further, that the enumeration of “impeachable offenses” is made absolute, that is, only those enumerated offenses are treated as grounds for impeachment, is not equivalent to saying that the enumeration likewise purport to be a complete statement of the causes of removal from office. If other causes of removal are available, then other modes of ouster can likewise be availed. To subscribe to the view that appointments or election of impeachable officers are outside judicial review is to cleanse their appointments or election of any possible defect pertaining to the Constitutionally prescribed qualifications which cannot otherwise be raised in an impeachment proceeding. To hold otherwise is to allow an absurd situation where the appointment of an impeachable officer cannot be questioned even when, for instance, he or she has been determined to be of foreign nationality or, in offices where Bar membership is a qualification, when he or she fraudulently represented to be a member of the Bar.

4. No. The Supreme Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction over a quo warranto petition is not violative of the doctrine of separation of powers.

The Court’s assumption of jurisdiction over an action for quo warranto involving a person who would otherwise be an impeachable official had it not been for a disqualification, is not violative of the core constitutional provision that impeachment cases shall be exclusively tried and decided by the Senate. Again, the difference between quo warranto and impeachment must be emphasized. An action for quo warranto does not try a person’s culpability of an impeachment offense, neither does a writ of quo warranto conclusively pronounce such culpability. The Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction over quo warranto proceedings does not preclude Congress from enforcing its own prerogative of determining probable cause for impeachment, to craft and transmit the Articles of Impeachment, nor will it preclude Senate from exercising its constitutionally committed power of impeachment.

However, logic, common sense, reason, practicality and even principles of plain arithmetic bear out the conclusion that an unqualified public official should be removed from the position immediately if indeed Constitutional and legal requirements were not met or breached. To abdicate from resolving a legal controversy simply because of perceived availability of another remedy, in this case impeachment, would be to sanction the initiation of a process specifically intended to be long and arduous and compel the entire membership of the Legislative branch to momentarily abandon their legislative duties to focus on impeachment proceedings for the possible removal of a public official, who at the outset, may clearly be unqualified under existing laws and case law.

For guidance, the Court demarcates that an act or omission committed prior to or at the time of appointment or election relating to an official’s qualifications to hold office as to render such appointment or election invalid is properly the subject of a quo warranto petition, provided that the requisites for the commencement thereof are present. Contrariwise, acts or omissions, even if it relates to the qualification of integrity, being a continuing requirement but nonetheless committed during the incumbency of a validly appointed and/or validly elected official, cannot be the subject of a quo warranto proceeding, but of something else, which may either be impeachment if the public official concerned is impeachable and the act or omission constitutes an impeachable offense, or disciplinary, administrative or criminal action, if otherwise.