IN granting the petition for quo warranto against the respondent chief justice, the Supreme Court in its en banc decision on May 11 sustained the argument of Solicitor General Jose C. Calida, representing the Republic of the Philippines, “that quo warranto is available as a remedy even as against impeachable officers.”
The High Court, in its 153-page decision, declared: “WHEREFORE, the Petition for Quo Warranto is GRANTED. Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno is found DISQUALIFIED from and is hereby adjudged GUILTY of UNLAWFULLY HOLDING and EXERCISING the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE. Accordingly, Respondent Sereno is OUSTED and EXCLUDED therefrom.”
Because Sereno and her backers and other supporters may have turned her case into a propaganda hyperbole, the Supreme Court ordered her “to show cause within 10 days from receipt hereof why she should not be sanctioned for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct for transgressing the sub Judice rule and for casting aspersions and ill motives to the members of the Supreme Court.”
In justifying its petition, Calida explained that a quo warranto is different from the impeachment proceedings because the writ of quo warranto was sought to question the validity of her appointment, while the impeachment complaint accused her of committing culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust while in office.
The Republic sought to oust the respondent from her position as Chief Justice on the ground that 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), Article VIII, of the Constitution.
According to the decision, “because respondent failed to fulfill the Judicial and Bar Council requirement [JBC] of filing the complete Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, her integrity remains unproven. The Republic posits that the JBC’s ostensible nomination of respondent does not extinguish the fact that the latter failed to comply with the SALN requirement as the filing thereof remains to be a constitutional and statutory requirement.”
“In sum, the Republic contended that respondent’s failure to submit her SALNs as required by the JBC disqualified her, at the outset, from being a candidate for the position of chief justice. Lacking her SALNs, respondent has not proven her integrity, which is a requirement under the Constitution. The Republic thus concluded that, since respondent is ineligible for the position of Chief Justice for lack of proven integrity, she has no right to hold office and may therefore be ousted via quo warranto,” the decision said.
Invoking the verba legis principle (“the letter of the law”) in statutory construction, the Republic claimed that Section 2, Article XI, of the Constitution does not expressly prohibit resort to other means to remove impeachable officers in position.
“Contrary to respondent’s claim that this Court has no disciplinary authority over its incumbent members, the Republic cited Section 13 of 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 Supreme Court. The Republic points out that such Ethics Committee conducted the investigation in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC and A.M. No. 09-2-19-SC,” the decision said.
In support of its claim that the petition is not time-barred, the Republic explained that “the State has a continuous interest in ensuring that those who partake of its sovereign powers are qualified, arguing that the one-year period provided under Section 11 of Rule 66 merely applies to individuals who are claiming rights to a public office, and not to the State. To consider the instant petition as time-barred is to force the State to spend its resources in favor of an unqualified person.”
Further, the Republic claimed that, even if it be assumed that the one-year period applies against the State, it cannot be deemed to have been notified of respondent’s failure to file her SALNs. It argued that it has no statutory obligation to monitor compliance of government employees other than its own. It alleged that SALNs are not published; hence it has no feasible way of taking cognizance of respondent’s failure to file SALN.
It was found that the respondent is ineligible to hold the chief justice of the Supreme Court position for lack of 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.
The decision said:
“Again, one of the Constitutional duties of a public officer is to submit a declaration under oath of his or her assets, liabilities and net worth upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law. When the Constitution and the law exact obedience, public officers must comply and not offer excuses.
“When a public officer is unable or unwilling to comply, he or she must not assume office in the first place, or if already holding one, he or she must vacate that public office because it is the correct and honorable thing to do.
“A public officer who ignores, trivializes or disrespects Constitutional and legal provisions, as well as the canons of ethical standards, forfeits his or her right to hold and continue in that office.
“The position of the chief justice of the Supreme Court is declared vacant, and the Judicial and Bar Council is directed to commence the application and nomination process.
“This decision is immediately executory without need of further action from the Court.”
To reach the writer, e-mail cecilio.arillo@gmail.com.