Author Topic: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s  (Read 5690 times)

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets

notes for posterity; the ponencia of the pro and con supreme court justices on the quo warranto against ma. lourdes sereno. 2018.



Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

unionbank online loan application low interest, credit card, easy and fast approval

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2018, 07:53:35 PM »

Decision                            2                            G.R. No. 237428

Integrity has, at all times, been stressed to be one of the required qualifications of a judge. It is not a new concept in the vocation of administering and dispensing justice. In the early l 600's, Francis Bacon, a philosopher, statesman, and jurist, in his "Essay L VI: Of Judicature" said - "'[a]bove all things, integrity is the Judge's portion and proper virtue." Neither is integrity a complex concept necessitating esoteric philosophical disquisitions to be understood. Simply, it is a qualification of being honest, truthful, and having steadfast adherence to moral and ethical principles.(1) Integrity connotes being consistent - doing the right thing in accordance with the law and ethical standards every time. Hence, every judicial officer in any society is required to comply, not only with the laws and legislations, but with codes and canons of conduct and ethical standards as well, without derogation. As Thomas Jefferson remarked, "it is of great importance to set a resolution, never not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual, he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart and in time depraves all its good dispositions." Mental dishonesty and moral mischief breed all that integrity is not.

In our jurisdiction, one cannot be qualified to be a member of the Judiciary, lacking such mandatory requirement of "proven integrity". Inevitably, an appointee to the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must be the exemplar of honesty, probity and integrity. The purpose of this requirement is self-evident as the Chief Justice heads the Judiciary and adjudicates cases as a member of the Court that "has the last word on what the law is."(2) Together with other Justices, the Chief Justice also disciplines members of the Bar for misconduct. The significance of probity and integrity as a requirement for appointment to the Judiciary is underscored by the fact that such qualifications are not explicitly required of the President, the Vice-President or the Members of Congress under the Constitution. The Constitution, thus, demands in no uncertain terms that the Chief Justice be the embodiment of moral and ethical principles. He or she must be of unquestionable character, possessed of moral authority to demand obedience to the law and to impose a rule of conduct. Indeed, one who exacts compliance with the law and ethical standards should be their foremost adherent.

No one is above the law and the Constitution, not even a Chief Justice who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and obey the laws of the land. The Court in Francisco, Jr. v. The House of Representatives,(3) says

-------
<http://www.dictionary.com/browse/integrity> (visited on March 19, 2018);
<https://www.thefreedictionary.com/integrity> (visited on March 19, 2018). 2 Conde v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 228 Phil. 145, 151 ( 1986). 3 460 Phil. 830 (2003).

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2018, 08:30:43 PM »

Decision                            3                             G.R. No. 237428

it tritely - "the Chief Justice is not above the law and neither is any other member of this Court."(4) All public officers whether in the Executive, Legislative or Judicial departments are bound to follow the law. If a public officer violates the law, he or she shall suffer punishment, sanctions and adverse consequences. The obligatory force of the law is necessary because once we allow exceptions, concessions, waiver, suspension or nonapplication to those who do not want to follow the law, nobody else will obey the law.

In this unprecedented case for quo warranto against the incumbent Chief Justice, the Republic entreats this 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'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.

The Case

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 of the Rules of Court, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed the present Petition (5) for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of quo warranto to declare as void respondent's appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and to oust and altogether exclude respondent therefrom.

The Antecedents

From November 1986 to June 1, 2006, or spanning a period of 20 years, respondent served as a member of the faculty of the University of the Philippines-College of Law (U.P. or U.P. College of Law), initially as a temporary faculty member (from November 1986 to December 31, 1991) and thereafter, as a permanent faculty member until her resignation therefrom on June 1, 2006.(6) As a regular faculty member, respondent was paid by the month by U.P. (7)

-------
4 Id. at 943.
5 Rollo, pp. 3-44.
6 Id. at 172.
7 TSN, Oral Arguments on April 10, 2018.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

unionbank online loan application low interest, credit card, easy and fast approval

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2018, 02:01:01 PM »

Decision                             4                             G.R. No. 237428

Based on the records of the U.P. Human Resources Development Office (U.P. HRD0),( 8 ) respondent was on official leave from the U.P. College of Law for the following periods:

June 1, 2000 - May 31, 2001
June 1, 2001 - May 31, 2002
November 1, 2003 - May 31, 2004
June 1, 2004 - October 31, 2004
November 1, 2004 - February 10, 2005
February 11, 2005 - October 31, 2005
November 15, 2005 - May 31, 2006

While being employed at the U.P. College of Law, or from October 2003 to 2006, respondent was concurrently employed as legal counsel of the Republic in two international arbitrations: (a) PIATCO v. Republic of the Philippines and MIAA; and (b) Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (PIATCO cases).(9)

The Personal Data Sheet (PDS) accomplished under oath by respondent further details, among others, the following engagements/services rendered by her for various government agencies:(10)

Position: Legal Counsel 

Department/Agency: Various agencies of government--- Office of the President, Office of the Solicitor General, Manila International Airport Authority, Department of Agriculture, Department of Trade and Industry, WTO-AFTA Commission, Philippine Coconut Authority 

Nature of Work: Legal--- various international trade and investment law in WTO (Geneva), ICSID (Washington, DC), ICC-ICA (Singapore, Paris), and in bilateral dispute resolution mechanisms

Supervisor: Executive Secretaries Alberto Romulo, Eduardo Ermita, and Leandro Mendoza; Presidential Legal Counsel Avelino Cruz and Merceditas Gutierrez; Solicitor Generals Alfredo Benipayo, Antonio Nachura and Agnes Devanadera; MIAA General Manager Alfonso Cusi, Sen. Edgardo Angara, Sec. Salvador Escudero, Undersecretary Thomas Aquino, Amb. Lilia Bautista

-------
8 Annex "D" of the Petition.
9 Id. at 173. 10 Id. at 850-851.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2018, 02:32:02 PM »

Decision                             5                             G.R. No. 237428

Position: Deputy Commissioner 

Department/Agency: Commission on Human Rights (UP Diliman, Commonwealth Ave., QC, TEL:928-7098)

Nature of Work: Legal and Administrative

Supervisor: Acting Chairman & Commissioner Abelardo Aportadera (TEL: 687-7571)

Incidentally, the U.P. HRDO certified that there was no record on respondent's 201 file of any permission to engage in limited practice of profession.(11) Her engagement as legal counsel for the Republic continued until 2009.(12)

Despite having been employed at the U.P. College of Law from November 1986 to June 1, 2006, the record of the U.P. HRDO only contains the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for 1985,(13) 1990,(14) 1991, (15) 1993,(16) 1994,(17) 1995,(18) 1996,(19) 1997,size=6pt](20)[/size] and 2002,(21) filed by respondent. On the other hand, the records of the Central Records Division of the Office of the Ombudsman yields that there is no SALN filed by respondent for calendar years 1999 to 2009 except for the SALN ending December 1998 which was subscribed only in August 2003 and transmitted by the U.P. HRDO to the Ombudsman only on December 16, 2003.(22) Belatedly, in respondent's Ad Cautelam Manifestation/Submission, she attached a copy of her SALN for 1989(23) which she supposedly sourced from the "filing cabinets"(24) or "drawers of U.P."(25) Similarly, despite having been employed as legal counsel of various government agencies from 2003 to 2009, there is likewise no showing that she filed her SALNs for these years, except for the SALN ending December 31, 2009 which was  unsubscribed and filed before the Office of the Clerk of Court only on June 22, 2012.

-------
11 Id. at 65.
12 Id. at 173.
13 Id. at 597-597 A.
14 Id. at 598-598A.
15 Id. at 599-599A.
16 Id. at 600-600A.
17 Id. at 601-601A.
18 Id. at 602-602A.
19 Id. at 603-603A.
20 Id. at 604-604A.
21 Id. at 54-55.
22 Id. at 60-62.
23 ld. at 1727-1728.
24 TSN, Oral Arguments on April 10, 2018, p. 105.
25 TSN, Oral Arguments on April 10, 2018, p. 120.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2018, 02:46:33 PM »

Decision                             6                             G.R. No. 237428

After having served as a professor at the U.P. College of Law until 2006, and thereafter as practitioner in various outfits including as legal counsel for the Republic until 2009, the respondent 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.(26) This SALN for 2006 bears no stamp received by the U.P. HRDO and was signed on July 27, 2010.(27) According to respondent, the JBC considered her nomination for the position of Associate Justice as that of a private practitioner and not as a government employee.(28) Only recently, in a letter(29) to the ORSN dated February 2, 2018, likewise attached to her Ad Cautelam Manifestation/Submission, respondent would explain that such SALN was really intended to be her SALN as of July 27, 2010.(30) Respondent further explained during the Oral Arguments that she merely downloaded the SALN form and forgot to erase the year "2006" printed thereon and that she was not required by the ORSN to submit a subscribed SALN.(31)

Thus, as the certifications executed by the U.P. HRDO, the Ombudsman and the ORSN of the JBC stand, the only SALNs available on record and filed by respondent were those for the calendar years 1985, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2002 or eleven (11) SALNs filed in her 20-year government service in U.P. No SALNs were filed from 2003 to 2006 when she was employed as legal counsel for the Republic. Neither was there a SALN filed when she resigned from U.P. College of Law as of June 1, 2006 and when she supposedly re-entered government service as of August 16, 2010.

In tabular form, respondent's inclusive years in government employment vis-a-vis the SALNs filed by her and available on record are as follows:

-------
26 Id. at 67-70.
27 Id.
28 Id. at 174.
29 Id. at 1729-1730.
30 TSN, Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives.
31 TSN, Oral Arguments dated April 10, 2018.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2018, 08:12:16 PM »

Decision                             7                             G.R. No. 237428

As faculty member of the U.P. College of Law:

Year: 1986
SALN ought to be filed: SALN as of November 1986 (entry SALN)
SALN actually filed by respondent: SALN ending December 31, 1985; -no record of SALN as of November 1986-
 
Year: 1987
SALN ending December 31, 1986
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record-

Year: 1988
SALN ending December 31, 1987
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record-

Year: 1989
SALN ending December 31, 1988
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record-

Year: 1990
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 1989
SALN actually filed by respondent: December 31, 1989 (sourced by respondent from one of the "filing cabinets" or "drawers" of U.P.)

Year: 1991
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 1990
SALN actually filed by respondent: SALN ending December 31, 1990

Year: 1992
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December SALN ending December 31, 1990
SALN actually filed by respondent: December 31, 1991

Year:1993
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 1992
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record-

Year: 1994
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 1993
SALN actually filed by respondent: December 31, 1993

Year:1995
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 1994
SALN actually filed by respondent: December 31, 1994

Year:1996
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 1995
SALN actually filed by respondent: December 31, 1995

Year: 1997
SALN ought to be filed: December SALN ending December 31, 1996
SALN actually filed by respondent: December 31, 1996

Year: 1998
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December SALN ending December 31, 1997
SALN actually filed by respondent: December 31, 1997

Year: 1999
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 1998
SALN actually filed by respondent: December 31, 1998 (filed with the Ombudsman on December 16, 2003)

Year: 2000
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 1999
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record-

Year: 2001
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 2000
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record-

Year: 2002
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 2001
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record-

(note: sourced from tabular form by poster)

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

unionbank online loan application low interest, credit card, easy and fast approval

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2018, 08:46:37 PM »

Decision                             8                             G.R. No. 237428

Year: 2003
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 2002
SALN actually filed by respondent: SALN ending December 31,2002

Year: 2004
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 2003
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record-

Year: 2005
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 2004
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record-

Year: 2006
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 2005
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record-
 
June 1, 2006
SALN ought to be filed: SALN as of June 1, 2006 (exit SALN)
SALN actually filed by respondent: -no record of SALN as of June 1, 2006 (exit SALN)-

Alleged break in government service from June 2, 2006 until August 15, 2009 but was engaged as legal counsel for the Republic from June 2, 2006 to 2009.

As Associate Justice of the Supreme Court:

Year: August 16, 2010
SALN ought to be filed: SALN as of August 16, 2010 (re-entry SALN)
SALN actually filed by respondent: SALN ending December 31, 2009 but filed with the Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc only on June 22, 2012 and unsubscribed
-no record of SALN as of August 16, 2010 (re-entry SALN)-

Year: 2011
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 2010
SALN actually filed by respondent: SALN ending December 31, 2010 but unsubscribed

Year: 2012
SALN ought to be filed: SALN ending December 31, 2011
SALN actually filed by respondent: SALN ending December 31, 2011

A month after, or on August 13, 2010, respondent was appointed by then President Benigno C. Aquino III (President Aquino III) as Associate Justice, and on August 16, 2010, respondent took her oath of office as such.

When the position of the Chief Justice was declared vacant in 2012, the JBC announced(32) the opening for application and recommendation of the position of Chief Justice. During the 2012 deliberations for the position of the Chief Justice, the members of the JBC En Banc were  Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta (Justice Peralta) as Acting ex officio Chairman; Undersecretary Michael Frederick L. Musngi as ex officio member vice Leila M. De Lima; Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero and Representative Niel Tupas as ex officio members representing the Congress; Justice Regino C. Hermosisima Jr. as regular member representing the retired Supreme Court Justices; Justice Aurora Santiago Lagman as regular member representing the Private Sector; Atty. Maria Milagros N. Fernan-Cayosa as regular member representing the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and Atty. Jose V.

-------
32 Id. at 83.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2018, 09:06:48 PM »

Decision                             9                             G.R. No. 237428

Mejia as regular member representing the academe. The JBC Executive Committee (Execom) was composed of the JBC Regular Members and assisted by the Office of the Executive Officer (OEO) headed by Atty. Annaliza S. Ty-Capacite (Atty. Capacite ).

The JBC announcement was preceded by an En Banc meeting held on June 4, 2012 wherein the JBC agreed to require the applicants for the Chief Justice position to submit, instead of the usual submission of the SALNs for the last two years of public service, all previous SALNs up to December 31, 2011 for those in government service. (33) However, for the other judicial vacancies, the JBC required the submission of only two SALNs.(34) Accordingly, in the Announcement(35) published on June 5, 2012, the JBC specifically directed the ~andidates for the Chief Justice post to submit, in addition to the usual documentary requirements, the following:

(1) Sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net worth (SALN):

a. for those in the government: all previous SALNs (up to 31 December 2011)
 
b. for those from the private sector: SALN as of 31 December 2011

(2) Waiver in favor of the JBC of the confidentiality of local and foreign bank accounts under the Bank Secrecy Law and Foreign Currency Deposits Act. 36 (Emphasis ours)

The JBC announcement further provided that "applicants with incomplete or out-of-date documentary requirements will not be interviewed or considered for nomination."(37)

Nevertheless, the JBC En Banc subsequently agreed to extend the deadline for the filing of applications or recommendations to July 2, 2012 and the submission of the other documentary requirements to July 17, 2012.(38)
 
On June 25, 2012, the JBC En Banc resolved not to require the incumbent Supreme Court Justices who are candidates for the Chief Justice position to submit other documentary requirements, particularly the required clearances. Instead, the JBC En Banc required the incumbent Justices to submit only the SALNs, bank waiver, medical certificate, laboratory results and the PDS.

-------
33 TSN dated February 12, 2018, X-3, Committee on Justice ofthe House of Representatives; see also Joint Comment of JBC Regular Members Atty. Jose V. Mejia and Atty. Maria Milagros Fernan-Cayosa (Re: Resolution dated 20 February 2018) in A.M. No. 17-11-12-SC and A.M. No. 17-11-17-SC.
34 JBC Announcement dated June 19, 2012; id. at 2190.
35 Id. at 84-86.
36 Id. at 83.
37 Id. at 86.
38 JBC Announcement dated June 19, 2012; id. at 2190.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2018, 09:40:11 PM »

Decision                             10                             G.R. No. 237428

On July 2, 2012, respondent accepted several nominations from the legal and the evangelical community for the position of Chief Justice and in support of her nomination, respondent submitted to the ORSN her SALNs for the years 2009,(39) 2010,(40) and 2011. (41) Respondent also executed a waiver of confidentiality(42) of her local and foreign bank accounts.(43)

On July 6, 2012, or even before the deadline of the submission of the documentary requirements on July 17, 2012, the JBC En Banc came up with a long list of the candidates totaling twenty-two (22), respondent included, and scheduled the public interview of said candidates on July 24-27, 2012.(44)

On July 20, 2012, the JBC in its Special En Banc Meeting,(45) deliberated on the candidates for the position of Chief Justice with incomplete documentary requirements. In particular, the JBC examined the list of candidates and their compliance with the required submission of SALNs. The minutes of the JBC deliberation reveal as follows:

xxxx

The Executive Officer asked for clarification, particularly with respect to SALNs, whether five (5) SALNs would constitute a substantial compliance if the candidate has been in the government service for twenty (20) years.

The Council examined the list with regard to the SALNs, particularly the candidates coming from the government, and identified who among them would be considered to have substantially complied:

1. Justice Arturo D. Brion - has substantially complied

2. Justice Antonio T. Carpio - has substantially complied

3. Secretary Leila M. De Lima - has substantially complied

4. Chairperson Teresita J. Herbosa - has complied

5. Solicitor General Francis H. Jardeleza - has complied

6. Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro - has sĀµbstantially complied

7. Dean Raul C. Pangalangan

-------
39 Id. at 71-72.
40 Id. at 73-74.
41 Id. at 75-77.
42 Id. at 269.
43 Id. at 174-175.
44 Minutes of JBC Meeting dated July 6, 2012.
45 Annex "17" of the Comment.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

unionbank online loan application low interest, credit card, easy and fast approval

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2018, 09:51:28 PM »
 
Decision                             11                             G.R. No. 237428

The Executive Officer informed the Council that Dean Pangalangan lacks five (5) SALNs. She was informed that he could not obtain them from the U.P., but he is trying to get from the Civil Service Commission.

Justice Lagman moved that the SALNs of Dean Pangalangan be considered as substantial compliance.

8. Congressman Rufus B. Rodriguez

Justice Peralta said that as per the report, Congressman Rodriguez did not submit even one SALN. He commented that he may not be interested although he accepted his nomination.

The Executive Officer informed the Council that he is abroad. He was notified through email, as his secretary would not give his contact number.

9. Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento - has lacking SALNs

10. Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno

The Executive Officer informed the Council that she had not submitted her SALNs for a period of ten (10) years, that is, from 1986 to 2006.

Senator Escudero mentioned that Justice Sereno was his professor at U.P. and that they were required to submit SALNs during those years.


11. Judge Manuel DJ Siayngco - has complied

Atty. Cayosa mentioned that Judge Siayngco has to submit a certificate of exemption because judges are also required to comply with that requirement.

12. Dean Amado D. Valdez - has lacking requirements

13. Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. - has complied

14. Atty. Vicente R. Velasquez - has lacking requirements

15. Dean Cesar L. Villanueva - has lacking requirements

16. Atty. Ronaldo B. Zamora - has lacking SALNs and MCLE
cert.

xxxx.(46) (Emphasis ours)

-------
46 Id. at 288-289.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2018, 10:11:24 PM »

Decision                             12                             G.R. No. 237428

Because there were several candidates with incomplete documentary requirements, the JBC En Banc agreed to again  extend the deadline for the submission of the lacking requirements to July 23, 2012 and that the determination of whether a candidate has substantially complied with the  requirements be delegated to the Execom. It also appears that the JBC En Banc further agreed that the candidates who fail to complete the requirements on said date are to be excluded from the list of candidates to be interviewed and considered for nomination, unless they would be included if in the determination of the Execom he or she has substantially complied.(47)

Thus, on July 20, 2012, the ORSN, through its then Chief Atty. Richard Pascual (Atty. Pascual), inquired as to respondent's SALNs for the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999. (48) During the Congressional hearings on impeachment, Atty. Pascual would later on testify that he asked respondent to submit her SALNs from 1996 to 2006, or spanning a period of 10 years.(49) During the Oral Arguments, respondent would maintain that Atty. Pascual only required her to submit her SALNs from 1995-1999 and did not ask for her more recent SALNs. Either way, the years requested from respondent are within the period (1986 to 2006) covered by her employment with the U.P. College of Law.

In response, the respondent, in the afternoon of July 23, 2012, transmitted a letter(50) of even date to the JBC, which stated:

xxxx

As I had noted in my Personal Data Sheet, after my resignation from government service in 2006, as a professor at the University of the Philippines, I became a full-time private practitioner. Hence, when I was nominated for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in 2010, my nomination was considered as that of a private practitioner, and not as a government employee. Thus, the requirements imposed on me in connection with the consideration of my name, were those imposed on nominees from the private sector, and my earlier-terminated government service, did not control nor dominate the kind of requirements imposed on me.

Considering that most of my government records in the academe are more than fifteen years old, it is reasonable to consider it infeasible to retrieve all of those files.

In any case, the University of the Philippines has already cleared me of all academic/administrative responsibilities, money and property accountabilities and from administrative charges as of O 1 June 2006. Since it is the ministerial duty of the Head of the Office to ensure that the SALNs of its personnel are properly filed and accomplished (CSC

-------
47 Id. at 289-290.
48 Id. at 270-271.
49 House Committee Hearing on February 27, 2018.
50 Id. at 78-79 and 270-271.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2018, 10:29:23 PM »

Decision                             13                             G.R. No. 237428

Resolution No. 060231 dated 01 February 2006 and CSC Memorandum Circular No. 10-2006 dated 17 April 2006), this clearance can be taken as an assurance that my previous government employer considered the SALN requirements to have been met. A copy of the Clearance dated 19 September 2011 issued by the University of the Philippine~ is hereby attached.

In the 05 June 2012 Announcement, the Judicial and Bar Council imposed the requirement of submitting all previous SALNs for those in the government. As I pointed out earlier, my service in government is not continuous. The period of my private practice between my service in the University of the Philippines ending in 2006 and my appointment to the Supreme Court in 2010 presents a break in government service. Hence, in compliance with the documentary requirements for my candidacy as Chief Justice, I submitted only the SALN s from end of 2009 up to 31 December 2011, since I am considered to have been returned to public office and rendered government service anew from the time of my appointment as Associate Justice on 16 August 2010.

Considering that I have been previously cleared from all administrative responsibilities and accountabilities from my entire earlier truncated government service, may I kindly request that the requirements that I need to comply with, be similarly viewed as that from a private sector, before my appointment to the Government again m 2010 as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

xxxx(51)

The letter dated July 23, 2012 was received by the Office of the Administrative and Financial Services (OAFS) and copies thereof were received by the offices of the JBC regular members, the ORSN and the OE0.(52) The letter, however, was neither examined by the JBC regular members nor was it deliberated upon either by the JBC En Banc or the Execom.(53) Although the determination of whether a candidate has substantially complied with the documentary requirements was delegated to the Execom, the latter could not produce any minutes of the meeting or record that the members thereof deliberated on the July 23, 2012 letter of respondent.(54)

-------
51 Id. at 78-79.
52 See Comment of Executive Officer Atty. Capacite in A.M. No. 17-11-12~SC and A.M. No. 17-11-17-SC, p. 5.
53 See Joint Comment of Atty. Mejia and Atty. Cayosa in A.M. No. 17-11-12-SC and A.M. No. 17-11-17-SC, p. 6.
54 Letter dated April 6, 2018 of Atty. Capacite to the Office of Justice Tijam, certifying that there was no such minutes of meeting. The letter states:
xxxx
     This pertains to your request (through a telephone call) this afternoon for a copy of the minutes of a meeting wherein the Executive Committee of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) supposedly made a detennination after the 20 July 2012 JBC En Banc meeting of who among the candidates for the Chief Justice position had or had not substantially complied with the documentary requirements for the said post.
     As I have earlier informed you, no such minutes is extant in our records.
xxxx.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2018, 10:44:51 PM »

Decision                             14                             G.R. No. 237428

On the scheduled date of the interview on July 24, 2012, despite respondent's submission of only 3 SALNs, Atty. Pascual prepared a Report Re: Documentary Requirements and SALN of candidates for the Position of Chief Justice of the Philippines(55) wherein respondent was listed as applicant No. 14 with an opposite annotation that she had "COMPLETE REQUIREMENTS" and a note stating "Letter 7/23/12 - 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."

The JBC then proceeded to interview the candidates, including respondent who was interviewed on July 27, 2012. On August 6, 2012, the ORSN prepared a list of the 20 candidates, respondent included, vis-a-vis their SALN submissions. Opposite respondent's name was an enumeration of the SALNs she submitted, i.e., 2009, 2010 and 2011 and an excerpt from her July 23, 2012 letter that "considering that [respondent's] 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 13, 2012, the JBC voted on who would be included in the short list and on the same day, transmitted to the President its nominations(56) for the position of Chief Justice, as follows:

1. Carpio, Antonio T.
2. Abad, Roberto A.
3. Brion, Arturo D.
4. Jardeleza, Francis H.
5. Sereno, Maria Lourdes P.A.
6. Zamora, Ronaldo B.
7. Leonardo-De Castro, Teresita J.
8. Villanueva, Cesar L.

A month after respondent's acceptance of her nomination, or on August 24, 2012, respondent was appointed by then President Aquino III as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

On August 30, 2017, or five years after respondent's appointment as Chief Justice, an impeachment complaint was filed by Atty. Larry Gadon (Atty. Gadon) against respondent with the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives (House Committee on Justice) for culpable violation of the Constitution, corruption, high crimes, and betrayal of public trust. The complaint also alleged that respondent failed to make truthful declarations in her SALNs.

-------
55 See Annex "C" of the Joint Comment of Atty. Mejia and Atty. Cayosa in A.M. No. 17-11-12-SC and A.M. No. 17-11-17-SC.
56 Id. at 278-279.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2018, 11:29:39 PM »
Decision                             15                             G.R. No. 237428

The impeachment complaint was endorsed by several members of the House and, thereafter, was found to be sufficient in form and substance. The respondent 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.(57)

During these hearings, it was revealed that respondent purportedly failed to file her SALNs while she was a member of the faculty of the U.P. College of Law and that she filed her SALN only for the years 1998, 2002 and 2006. 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.(58) This was confirmed by Atty. Fernan Cayosa;(59) 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;(60) and by Atty. Pascual on the basis of the transmittal letter.(61)

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(62) dated February 21, 2018 of Atty. Eligio Mallari to the OSG requesting that the latter, in representation of the Republic, initiate a quo warranto proceeding against respondent.

Thus, the present petition.

The Case for the Republic

The Republic, through the OSG, claims that an action for quo warranto is the proper remedy to question the validity of respondent's appointment. It alleges that the instant petition is seasonably filed within the one-year reglementary period under Section 11, Rule 66,(63) of the Rules of

-------
57 Id. at 176-177.
58 TSN dated February 7, 2018, VI-3, Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives.
59 TSN dated Febraury 12, 2018, LCLV, XIII-2, Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives.
60 TSN dated February 12, 2018, HLEF, XXII-3, Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives.
61 TSN dated February 12, 2018, LCLV, XXVIIl-4, Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives.
62 Id. at 93-94.
63 Sec. 11. Limitations. - Nothing contained in this Rule shall be construed to authorize an action against a public officer or employee for his ouster from office unless the same be commenced within one (l) year after the cause of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position, arose, nor to authorize an action for damages in accordance with the provisions of the next preceding section unless the same be commenced within one (1) year after the entry of the judgment establishing the petitioner's right to the office in question.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

unionbank online loan application low interest, credit card, easy and fast approval

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #15 on: May 20, 2018, 12:04:29 AM »

Decision                             16                             G.R. No. 237428

Court since respondent's transgressions only came to light during the proceedings of the House Committee on Justice on the allegations of the impeachment complaint filed against her. Alternatively, the Republic claims that it has an imprescriptible right to bring a quo warranto petition under the maxim nullum tempus occurit regi.

In justifying resort to a petition for quo warranto, the Republic argues that quo warranto is available as a remedy even as against impeachable officers, like respondent. The Republic argues that a petition for quo warranto is different from the impeachment proceedings because the writ of quo warranto is being sought 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.(64) Citing the 2010 Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) and the cases of Funa v. Chairman Villar(65) and Nacionalista Party v. De Vera,(66) the Republic argues that quo warranto may be resorted to even against impeachable officers and that the respondent's assumption of the position as Chief Justice under the color of an executive appointment is a public wrong correctible by quo warranto.

The Republic seeks to oust respondent from her position as Chief Justice on the ground that the latter failed to show that she is a person of proven integrity which is an indispensable qualification for membership in the Judidary under Section 7(3),(67) Article VIII of the Constitution. According to the Republic, because respondent failed to fulfill the JBC requirement of filing the complete SALNs, 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.(68)

In sum, the Republic contends that respondent's failure to submit her SALNs as required by the JBC disqualifies 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 concludes 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.

-------
64 Rollo, p. 13.
65 686 Phi I. 571 (2012).
66 85 Phil. 126 (1949).
67 Sec. 7. (3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence. (Emphasis ours)
68 Rollo, p. 28.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #16 on: May 20, 2018, 12:30:26 AM »

Decision                             17                             G.R. No. 237428

The Case for the Respondent

Being circumspect in the examination of every pleading and document on record, this Court observes that, initially, the Comment Ad Cautelam dated March 16, 2018 filed before Us was neither signed by the respondent herself nor verified to have been read by her and attested by her that the allegations therein are true and correct of her personal knowledge or based on authentic records. This Court is not unaware that under the Rules of Court, specifically Section 4, Rule 7, not all pleadings need to be under oath, verified, or accompanied by an affidavit. In fact, the rules on quo warranto do not require the filing of such comment, but pursuant to the dictates of the fundamental right of due process and also the desire of this Court to dispose of this case judiciously, impartially, and objectively, this Court gave the respondent the opportunity to be heard and oppose the allegations in the petition by requiring her to file a comment thereto. Thus, this Court anticipated a response from the respondent to take such opportunity to settle the uncertainty of her nomination and appointment through her comment to the petition. What was received by this Court, however, was an unverified Comment repudiating the Court's jurisdiction, merely signed by counsel, who appeared to be representing the respondent.

Wary of the legal implications of such unverified pleading, i.e. possible refutation of the allegations stated therein and repudiation of the signing counsel's authority to represent, this Court in its April 3, 2018 Resolution(69) set as a condition for the conduct of Oral Arguments prayed for by respondent, that the latter affirm and verify under oath the truth and veracity of the allegations in the Comment Ad Cautelam filed by counsel supposedly on her behalf.

In an Ad Cautelam Partial Compliance/Manifestation dated April 5, 2018, respondent affirmed and verified under oath the truth and veracity of the allegations in the said Comment Ad Cautelam through a Verification dated April 6, 2018 attached therein.

In the said Comment Ad Cautelam, respondent argues that, on the strength of Section 2,(70) Article XI of the 1987 Constitution and the cases of Mayor Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan,(71) Cuenca v. Hon. Fernan,(72) In Re: First lndorsement from Hon. Gonzales,(73) and Re: Complaint-Affidavit for Disbarment Against Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio,(74) the Chief

-------
69 Id. at 501-505.
70 Sec. 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. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as
provided by law, but not by impeachment.
71 213 Phil. 288 (1984).
72 241 Phil. 162 (1988).
73 243 Phil. 167 (1988).
74 En Banc Resolution dated August JO, 2012 in A.M. No. 12-8-4-SC.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

unionbank online loan application low interest, credit card, easy and fast approval

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #17 on: May 20, 2018, 12:42:56 AM »

Decision                             18                             G.R. No. 237428

Justice may be ousted from office only by impeachment. Respondent contends that the use of the phrase "may be removed from office" in Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution does not signify that Members of the Supreme Court may be removed through modes other than impeachment. According to respondent, 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.

It is likewise the argument of respondent 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 Supreme Court disciplinary and administrative power over all courts and the personnel thereof. She theorizes that if a Member of the Supreme Court can be ousted through quo warranto initiated by the OSG, the Congress' "check" on the Supreme Court through impeachment would be rendered inutile.

Respondent argues that the present petition is time-barred as 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. Respondent contends that the supposed "failure" to file the required SALNs allegedly took place for several years from 1986 to 2006, thus, the "cause of ouster" existed even before the respondent was appointed as Chief Justice on August 24, 2012. Therefore, as early as her appointment, the Republic, through the OSG, already had a cause of action to seek her ouster. Even assuming that the one-year prescriptive period may be counted from the Republic's "discovery" of the disqualification, the petition would still be time-barred since the Republic would have made such a "discovery" through U.P., considering that the U.P. HRDO is required to submit a list of employees who failed to file their SALNs.

Respondent avers 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. According to respondent, the Republic failed to overcome this presumption as the documents relied upon by it, i.e., certifications from the U.P. HRDO and the Ombudsman, do not categorically state that respondent failed to file her SALNs. On the contrary, respondent points out that the U.P. HRDO had certified that she had been cleared of all administrative responsibilities and charges as of June 1, 2006 and that there was no pending administrative charge against her.

It is likewise the contention of respondent that public officers without pay or those who do not receive compensation are not required to file a SALN. Thus, respondent argues that for the periods that she was on official

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #18 on: May 20, 2018, 12:56:31 AM »

Decision                             19                             G.R. No. 237428

leave without pay, she was actually not required to file any SALN for the inclusive years. She adds that to require the submission of SALNs as an absolute requirement is to expand the qualifications provided for under the Constitution.

Nonetheless, respondent represents that she continues to recover and retrieve her missing SALNs and will present them before the Senate sitting as the Impeachment Tribunal and not to this Court considering her objections to the latter's exercise of jurisdiction.

Respondent also stresses that the failure to file SALNs or to submit the same to the JBC has no bearing on one's integrity. The submission of SALNs was simply among the additional documents which the JBC had required of the applicants for the position of Chief Justice. It is respondent's position that the non-filing of SALN is not a ground for disqualification unless the same was already the subject of a pending criminal or administrative case or if the applicant had already been finally convicted for a criminal offense involving said failure to file SALNs. In this case, respondent points out that the JBC was made aware as early as July 20, 2012 that respondent had not submitted to the JBC her SALNs as a U.P. professor and yet none of them invoked Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 or the "integrity rule."

Respondent likewise contends that the issue of whether an applicant for the position of Chief Justice is a person of "proven integrity" is a question "constitutionally committed to the JBC" and is therefore a political question which only the JBC could answer, and it did so in the affirmative when it included respondent's name in the shortlist of nominees for the position of Chief Justice.

The Republic's Reply

In refuting respondent's arguments, the Republic justifies its resort to the unconventional method of quo warranto. The Republic cites the cases of Estrada v. Desierto(75) and Lawyers League for a Better Philippines and/or Oliver Lozano v. President Corazon Aquino et al.(76) where this Court took cognizance of a petition for quo warranto to oust an impeachable official. It reiterates its argument that it seeks respondent's ouster, not on account of commission of impeachable offenses, but because of her ineligibility to assume the position of Chief Justice.

The Republic maintains that the phrase "may be removed from office" in Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution means that Members of the Supreme Court may be removed through modes other than impeachment and

-------
75 406 Phil. 1 (200 I).
76 En Banc Resolution dated May 22, 1986 in G.R. No. 73748.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #19 on: May 20, 2018, 01:21:56 AM »

Decision                             20                             G.R. No. 237428

disagrees with respondent's interpretation that the word "may" qualifies only the penalty imposable after the impeachment trial, i.e., removal from office. The Republic claims that respondent's interpretation would lead to an absurd situation in the event that the Senate imposes a lesser penalty, like suspension of the President, which would result in a vacancy in the position not intended by the Constitution. This is because vacancy in the Office of the President occurs only in case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation, in which event the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term.

Invoking the verba legis principle in statutory construction, the Republic claims 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 cites 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(77) and A.M. No. 09-2-19-SC.(78)

Meanwhile, in support of its claim that the petition is not time-barred, the Republic explains that the State has a continuous interest in ensuring that those who partake of its sovereign powers are qualified. It argues 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, the Republic argues, is to force the State to spend its resources in favor of an unqualified person.

Further, the Republic claims 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 argues that it has no statutory obligation to monitor compliance of government employees other than its own. It alleges that SALNs are not published, hence it has no feasible way of taking cognizance of respondent's failure to file SALN.

In any case, the Republic claims that the unique circumstances of the instant case behoove this Court to be liberal in interpreting the one-year reglementary period.

-------
77 647 Phil. 122 (2010).
78 599 Phil. 258 (2009).

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

unionbank online loan application low interest, credit card, easy and fast approval

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #20 on: May 20, 2018, 01:34:28 AM »

Decision                             21                             G.R. No. 237428

As to the question on jurisdiction, the Republic contends that the Supreme Court is clothed with the authority to determine respondent's qualifications and eligibility to hold the position of the Chief Justice. It argues that the determination of this issue is not a political question because such issue may be resolved through the interpretation of the pertinent prov1s1ons of the Constitution, laws, JBC rules, and Canons of Judicial Ethics.

Going to the fundamental issue of respondent's eligibility to hold the position of Chief Justice, the Republic reiterates that respondent failed to comply with the requirement of submitting SALNs and thus has failed to prove her integrity. Further, the Republic cites respondent's gross misrepresentation in stating that her reason for non-submission of SALNs was because she could no longer retrieve all of such SALN s. According to the Republic, respondent's allegation seems to imply that she did file her SALNs when the Certifications from the U.P. and the Ombudsman state otherwise.

The Republic posits that respondent's lack of integrity is further bolstered by her failure to disclose to the JBC that she failed to file her SALN 11 times during her tenure as U.P. Law Professor.

Integrity, the Republic claims, is simply faithful adherence to the law, and the filing of SALN is a qualification implied from the. requirement of integrity. The filing of SALN is not an additional requirement unduly imposed on applicants to positions in the Judiciary. When respondent failed to file her SALN, she did not comply with the Constitution, laws and appropriate codes of conduct. There is no need to allege or prove graft and corruption in order to prove an aspiring magistrate's lack of integrity.

Finally, the Republic contends that the presumption of regularity cannot be applied in respondent's favor. The Republic claims that such presumption attaches only to official acts and not to all acts of officials. The presumption, according to the Republic, applies only to official acts specified by law as an official duty or to a function attached to a public position. In this case, the filing of SALN is neither an official duty nor a function attached to a position of a U.P. College of Law Professor. In any case, the Republic claims that it has successfully disputed such presumption through the Certifications it presented from U.P. and the Ombudsman.

The Republic's Memorandum

In addition to the arguments put forth by the Republic in the Petition and the Reply, the Republic further justified its non-inclusion of the JBC in the instant petition. It contends that since the petition only disputes the respondent's eligibility to become the Chief Justice, the Solicitor General

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #21 on: May 20, 2018, 02:05:04 AM »

Decision                             22                             G.R. No. 237428

correctly instituted the quo warranto petition only against respondent. Insisting on respondent's lack of integrity, the Republic argues that respondent had the legal obligation to disclose to the JBC that she failed to file her SALNs at least 11 times, citing the case of OCA v. Judge Estacion Jr.(79)

The Republic also argues that respondent's claim of good faith is not a defense. Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019(80) and R.A. No. 6713(81) are special laws and are thus governed by the concept of malum prohibitum, wherein malice or criminal intent is completely immaterial. Thus, her act of blaming the Review and Compliance Committee of U.P. for its failure to inform her that she had no SALNs on file does not exonerate her. The Republic further notes that respondent resorted to the fallacy of tu quoque - a diversionary tactic by using the fault of others to justify one's own fault.

Believing in the strength of its case, the Republic underscores its contention that the respondent was not able to dispute the evidence put forth by the Republic that she failed to religiously file her SALNs throughout her entire stint in the government. The Republic claims that it is futile for respondent to merely allege during the Oral Arguments that she filed her SALNs and will produce them before the Senate. Respondent's admissions during the Oral Arguments, together with the U.P. HRDO's certification, prove that she did not religiously file her SALNs as required by law.

As to the applicability of this Court's ruling in Concerned Taxpayer v. Doblada, Jr.(82), the Republic argues that the case is not on all fours with the instant petition. The Doblada ruling, according to the OSG, did not involve issues on qualifications to public office unlike the present petition. Second, unlike in Doblada, respondent in this case failed to offer any countervailing evidence to disprove the Certifications by the U.P. HRDO and the Ombudsman. Lastly, the statement in Doblada relied upon by the respondent is a mere dictum. The issue therein is centered on Doblada's unexplained wealth. Furthermore, Doblada was decided only in 2005 or after respondent violated the legal requirement on the filing of SALNs.

-------
79 317 Phil. 600 (1995).
80 ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT. Approved on August 17, 1960.
81 AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, TO UPHOLD THE TIME-HONORED PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC OFFICE BEING A PUBLIC TRUST, GRANTING INCENTIVES AND REWARDS FOR EXEMPLARY SERVICE, ENUMERATING PROHIBITED ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Approved on February 20, 1989.
82 498 Phil. 395 (2005).

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #22 on: May 24, 2018, 01:38:13 PM »

Decision                             21                             G.R. No. 237428

As to the question on jurisdiction, the Republic contends that the Supreme Court is clothed with the authority to determine respondent's qualifications and eligibility to hold the position of the Chief Justice. It argues that the determination of this issue is not a political question because such issue may be resolved through the interpretation of the pertinent prov1s1ons of the Constitution, laws, JBC rules, and Canons of Judicial Ethics.

Going to the fundamental issue of respondent's eligibility to hold the position of Chief Justice, the Republic reiterates that respondent failed to comply with the requirement of submitting SALNs and thus has failed to prove her integrity. Further, the Republic cites respondent's gross misrepresentation in stating that her reason for non-submission of SALNs was because she could no longer retrieve all of such SALN s. According to the Republic, respondent's allegation seems to imply that she did file her SALNs when the Certifications from the U.P. and the Ombudsman state otherwise.

The Republic posits that respondent's lack of integrity is further bolstered by her failure to disclose to the JBC that she failed to file her SALN 11 times during her tenure as U .P. Law Professor.

Integrity, the Republic claims, is simply faithful adherence to the law, and the filing of SALN is a qualification implied from the requirement of integrity. The filing of SALN is not an additional requirement unduly imposed on applicants to positions in the Judiciary. When respondent failed to file her SALN, she did not comply with the Constitution, laws and appropriate codes of conduct. There is no need to allege or prove graft and corruption in order to prove an aspiring magistrate's lack of integrity.

Finally, the Republic contends that the presumption of regularity cannot be applied in respondent's favor. The Republic claims that such presumption attaches only to official acts and not to all acts of officials. The presumption, according to the Republic, applies only to official acts specified by law as an official duty or to a function attached to a public position. In this case, the filing of SALN is neither an official duty nor a function attached to a position of a U.P. College of Law Professor. In any case, the Republic claims that it has successfully disputed such presumption through the Certifications it presented from U.P. and the Ombudsman.

The Republic's Memorandum

In addition to the arguments put forth by the Republic in the Petition and the Reply, the Republic further justified its non-inclusion of the JBC in the instant petition. It contends that since the petition only disputes the respondent's eligibility to become the Chief Justice, the Solicitor General

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #23 on: May 24, 2018, 02:08:31 PM »

Decision                             22                             G.R. No. 237428

correctly instituted the quo warranto petition only against respondent.

Insisting on respondent's lack of integrity, the Republic argues that respondent had the legal obligation to disclose to the JBC that she failed to file her SALNs at least 11 times, citing the case of OCA v. Judge Estacion Jr.(79)

The Republic also argues that respondent's claim of good faith is not a defense. Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019(80) and R.A. No. 6713(81) are special laws and are thus governed by the concept of malum prohibitum, wherein malice or criminal intent is completely immaterial. Thus, her act of blaming the Review and Compliance Committee of U.P. for its failure to inform her that she had no SALNs on file does not exonerate her. The Republic further notes that respondent resorted to the fallacy of tu quoque - a diversionary tactic by using the fault of others to justify one's own fault.

Believing in the strength of its case, the Republic underscores its contention that the respondent was not able to dispute the evidence put forth by the Republic that she failed to religiously file her SALNs throughout her entire stint in the government. The Republic claims that it is futile for respondent to merely allege during the Oral Arguments that she filed her SALNs and wi11 produce them before the Senate. Respondent's admissions during the Oral Arguments, together with the U.P. HRDO's certification, prove that she did not religiously file her SALNs as required by law.

As to the applicability of this Court's ruling in Concerned Taxpayer v. Doblada, Jr.,(82) the Republic argues that the case is not on all fours with the instant petition. The Doblada ruling, according to the OSG, did not involve issues on qualifications to public office unlike the present petition. Second, unlike in Doblada, respondent in this case failed to offer any countervailing evidence to disprove the Certifications by the U.P. HRDO and the Ombudsman. Lastly, the statement in Doblada relied upon by the respondent is a mere dictum. The issue therein is centered on Doblada's unexplained wealth. Furthermore, Doblada was decided only in 2005 or after respondent violated the legal requirement on the filing of SALNs.

-------
79 317 Phil. 600 (1995).
80 ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT. Approved on August 17, 1960.
81 AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, TO UPHOLD THE TIME-HONORED PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC OFFICE BEING A PUBLIC TRUST, GRANTING INCENTIVES AND REWARDS FOR EXEMPLARY SERVICE, ENUMERATING PROHIBITED ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Approved on February 20, 1989.
82 498 Phil. 395 (2005).

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #24 on: May 24, 2018, 02:30:45 PM »

Decision                             23                             G.R. No. 237428

The Respondent's Memorandum

Respondent insists that she can be removed from office only through impeachment. In addition to the arguments raised in her Comment Ad Cautelam, respondent asserts that 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. Such purpose, according to respondent, would be defeated if Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution would not be construed as providing an exclusive means for the removal of impeachable officers. Respondent argues that it would be absurd for the framers of the Constitution to provide a very cumbersome process for removing said officers only to allow a less difficult means to achieve the same purpose.

Respondent contends that the Republic, in citing the 2010 PET Rules and the cases of Estrada v. Desierto(83) and Lawyers League for a Better Philippines and/or Oliver Lozano v. President Corazon Aquino et al.,(84) erroneously lumps together the Chief Justice, the President and the Vice President, simply because they are all impeachable officers. Respondent argues that there are substantial distinctions between the President and Vice President on the one hand, and Members of the Supreme Court on the other: first, unlike 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 similar provision with respect to the other impeachable officials, i.e., the Members of this Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commission or the Ombudsman; and second, the President and Vice-President are elected officials while the other impeachable officers are appointive officials.

Respondent also argues that there is not a single pronouncement in Funa v. Chairman Villar(85) and Nacionalista Party v. De Vera(86) (by way of a ruling or obiter dictum) to the effect that an impeachable officer may be ousted through a writ of quo warranto, and that both cases were not even for quo warranto.

Respondent 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 avers that the application of the political question doctrine is not confined to the President or Congress, as the Republic supposedly argues, but extends to other government departments or officers exercising

-------
83 Supra note 75.
84 Supra note 76.
85 Supra note 65.
86 Supra note 66.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #25 on: May 24, 2018, 02:42:46 PM »

Decision                             24                             G.R. No. 237428

discretionary powers, such as the JBC which uses its wisdom and discretion in determining whether an applicant to the Judiciary is a person of "proven" integrity.

Respondent also contends 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.

Respondent reiterates that the instant petition is time-barred. She argues that the Republic cannot rely on Agcaoili v. Suguitan(87) because it mentioned the principle nullum temus occurit regi or "no  time runs against the king" only in passing, as the "general rule concerning limitation of action in quo warranto proceedings." She avers that Agcaoili is in fact authority for the principle that prescription will definitely run against the State if the rule or statute clearly so provides.

Respondent avers that she complied with the SALN laws as Professor of the U.P. College of Law and that the law presumes regularity in the filing of SALNs. According to respondent, that at least 11 of her SALNs have been found tends to prove a pattern of filing, rather than non-filing.

Respondent argues that the burden of proof in quo warranto proceedings falls on the party who brings the action and that based on Doblada, the Republic failed to discharge this burden.

Respondent claims that the records of the U.P. HRDO are incomplete and unreliable and there was no categorical statement in its Certification that she failed to file her SALNs for the years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. Further, she avers that the records of the Office of the Ombudsman are even more incomplete and unreliable, thus, any certification from said office would likewise be insufficient to prove that she failed to file 11 of her SALNs while she was a U.P. Professor.

Respondent contends that she has actually presented preponderant evidence that she filed her SALNs. She avers that she has recovered 11 of her U.P. SALNs and she has direct proof that she executed at least 12 SALNs as a U.P. Professor. She stresses that the U.P. HRDO has thrice "cleared" her of all administrative responsibilities and administrative charges.

Respondent also claims that she was not even required to file a SALN from 1986 to 1991 because her status and appointment then was merely temporary. According to her, the fact that she served as counsel for the Republic for the PIATCO cases in 2004, 2005 and 2006 does not negate her defense that under the law, she was not required to file her SALNs for the years when she was on leave and Ā·was not receiving compensation arising

-------
87 48 Phil. 676 ( 1929).

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #26 on: May 24, 2018, 03:01:19 PM »

Decision                             25                             G.R. No. 237428

from public office (i.e., 2001, 2004, 2005 and 2006).

Respondent's Memorandum also sought to address certain matters raised during the Oral Arguments.

As to where her SALNs are, respondent avers that some of her SALNs were in fact found in the records of the U.P. HRDO, and she was able to retrieve copies of some of her SALNs from the U.P. Law Center. Without prejudice to her jurisdictional objections, she attached them to the Memorandum. She argues that the fact that the SALN s for certain years are missing cannot give rise to the inference that they were not filed. She points out that U.P. was only required to keep the SALNs for a period of ten (10) years after receipt of the statement, after which the SALN may be destroyed.

In explaining her statement before the JBC that her SALNs were irretrievable, respondent avers that she honestly could not retrieve copies from U.P. over the course of a weekend given to her to complete her missing documentary requirements. She declares that she did not keep copies of her SALN s and she was not required to do so by law.

Respondent asserts that her 2009 SALN was not belatedly filed. She explains that her 2009 SALN is an entry SALN which she originally filed on September 16, 2010 within thirty (30) days after her assumption of office as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. According to her, the revised 2009 SALN which has the annotation "revised as of 22 June 2012," is a revised version executed in June 2012 to more accurately reflect the acquisition cost of certain assets declared in 2010.

With respect to the purported 2006 SALN, respondent avers that it was not the SALN required by RA 6713, but a mere statement of her assets which the JBC requested as a tool to determine her assets for comparison with her income tax returns. She explains that she merely happened to use a downloadable SALN form which she filled up and dated as of the time of its writing, i.e., July 27, 2010. She claims that she never misrepresented the same to be her 2006 exit SALN from U.P. According to her, she in fact considers her 2006 SALN as one of the missing SALNs she is still trying to locate.

Respondent claims that she could not recall all the circumstances why her 1998 SALN was executed only in 2003 which, according to her, was reasonable since it happened l5 years ago. She claims that there is no law prohibiting her from submitting the same, and the fact that the SALN was filed serves the purpose of the law and negates any intention to hide unexplained wealth.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #27 on: May 24, 2018, 03:17:02 PM »

Decision                             26                             G.R. No. 237428

It is also respondent's position that the omission of her husband's signature on her 2011 SALN was inadvertent and was not an offense. According to her, it could not adversely impact on her integrity absent any allegation or finding that she acquired ill-gotten wealth. She argues that the Civil Service Commission's Guidelines which require the signature of the spouse who is not a public officer, was promulgated only in January 2013.

With regard to the jewelry she acquired from 1986 to 1991 which were supposedly declared in her 1991 SALN but were undeclared in her 1990 SALN, respondent avers that these assets were actually declared in her 1985 and 1989 SALNs, and they were consistently declared in all her subsequent SALNs beginning 1991. According to respondent, she should not be faulted for her inadvertent omission to declare such assets in her 1990 SALN as her declaration of the same thereafter is consistent with good faith and cured whatever error there may have been in her 1990 SALN. She argues that said assets were not manifestly disproportionate to her lawful income and even as a U.P. Professor, she could have afforded to purchase jewelry worth PhP15,000.00 over a span of six (6) years.

Finally, respondent argues that it is an "unreasonable and oppressive" interpretation of the law to reckon her entry SALN as Associate Justice of the Court from the date of her appointment (August 16, 2010) and not from Decemb~r 31, 2009 when it was actually filed. Respondent contends that R.A. No. 6713 only requires that the SALN be filed "within thirty days after assumption of office" - a directive she supposedly complied with. She argues that while the Implementing Rules and Regulations ofR.A. No. 6713 state that the SALN should be reckoned from the first day of service, the law provides for a review and compliance procedure which requires that a reporting individual first be informed and provided an opportunity to take necessary corrective action should there be any error in her SALN. Respondent avers that she did not receive any notice or compliance order informing her that her entry SALN was erroneous, and she was not directed to take the necessary corrective action.

The Respondent's Reply/Supplement to Memorandum

At the close of the Oral Argument, granted upon respondent's Ad Cautelam motion, the Court specifically required the parties to submit their respective memoranda within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days, after which, the petition shall be submitted for decision. Notwithstanding such clear directive from the Court, and even without being required to, respondent moves (again Ad Cautelam) for the inclusion of her Reply/Supplement to her memorandum filed beyond the period granted by the Court to the parties. The belated filing of said Reply/Supplement in disregard of the Court's directive merits its non-admission. Nevertheless, as the Court remains circumspect of the pleadings submitted by the parties and

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #28 on: May 24, 2018, 03:33:32 PM »

Decision                             27                             G.R. No. 237428

in accordance with the dictates of due process and fair play, respondent's Reply/Supplement to her Memorandum, albeit filed Ad Cautelam, is admitted.

Respondent raises two points in her Reply/Supplement: first, the new matter of tax fraud allegedly committed by her; and second, the forum shopping allegedly committed by the Republic.

Respondent sought to address the inclusion of the charge of tax fraud allegedly committed by her relative to the fees she received in the PIATCO cases which respondent argues to have been raised by the Republic only in its memorandum. Respondent denies having concealed or under declared her income in the PIATCO cases. She further points out that the Summary and the Powerpoint presentation prepared by BIR Deputy Commissioner Guballa and which were attached to the Republic's memorandum were incomplete, inaccurate and merely preliminary. In any case, respondent avers that BIR Deputy Commissioner Guballa himself found that respondent had "substantially declared all income (legal fees) from the PIATCO case in her ITRs from years 2004 to 2009 BUT there were certain discrepancies."(88)

Respondent also accuses the Republic of having committed deliberate forum-shopping in filing the action for quo warranto even when the impeachment proceeding was already pending before the House of Representatives. Contending that all the elements of forum-shopping are present, respondent points to the (1) identity of parties between the quo warranto action and the impeachment case inasmuch as the House Committee on Justice is also part of the Government; (2) identity of causes of action considering that the quo warranto case is based on respondent's alleged lack of proven integrity for failure to file all her SALNs when she was teaching at the U.P. College of Law and for concealing her true income and evasion of taxes which were the same attacks on her eligibility and qualifications as enumerated in the Articles of Impeachment; and (3) identity in the relief sought as both the quo warranto and the impeachment sought her removal from the Office of the Chief Justice.

The Motions for Intervention

Through a Joint Motion for Leave to Intervene and Admit Attached Comment-In-Intervention, movant-intervenors composed of (1) former CEO of PAG-IBIG Fund, Zorayda Amelia Capistrano Alonzo, (2) peace & human rights advocate Remedios Mapa Suplido, (3) urban poor advocate Alicia Gentolia Murphy, ( 4) Chairperson of Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka (PAKISAMA) Noland Merida Penas, (5) Fr. Roberto Reyes, and (6) poet, feminist & youth advocate Reyanne Joy P. Librado (Capistrano, et al.,) seek to intervene in the present petition as citizens and

-------
88 Respondent's Reply/Supplement to Memorandum Ad Cautelam.
Decision 28 G.R. No. 237

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #29 on: May 24, 2018, 03:49:48 PM »

Decision                             28                             G.R. No. 237428

taxpayers.

The comment-in-intervention is a virtual echo of the arguments raised in respondent's comment that quo warranto is an improper remedy against impeachable officials who may be removed only by impeachment and that the application of the PET rules are limited only to the President and Vice President who are elective, and not appointive, officials. Movant-intervenors similarly argue that the petition is already time-barred as the cause of action arose upon respondent's appointment as Chief Justice on August 24, 2012 or almost six (6) years ago.

Capistrano et al. argue that it is not incumbent upon respondent to prove to the JBC that she possessed the integrity required by the Constitution for members of the Judiciary; rather, the onus of determining whether or not she qualified for the post fell upon the JBC. They also posit that nowhere in the Constitution is the submission of all prior SALNs required; instead, what is required is that all aspiring justices of the Court must have the imprimatur of the JBC, the best proof of which is a person's inclusion in the shortlist.

Capistrano et al. persuade that respondent's explanation that her government records in the academe for 15 years are irretrievable is reasonable and that respondent did not mislead the JBC. On the contrary, they claim that the JBC accepted her explanation when it deemed respondent as qualified. In doing so, they conclude, that the JBC determined that she possessed the integrity as required by the Constitution.

A few hours after the filing of the Capistrano et. al.,'s Comment-in-Intervention, another set of intervenors composed of: (1) BAYAN MUNA Representative (Rep.) Carlos Isagani Zarate; (2) ACT Teachers Partylist Rep. Antonio Tinio & Francisca Castro; (3) GABRIELA Women's Party Rep. Emerenciana De Jesus & Arlene Brosas; (3) ANAKPAWIS Partylist Rep. Ariel Casilao; (5) KABATAAN Partylist Rep. Sarah Jane Elago; (6) Convenors and members of Movement Against Tyranny (MAT), namely: Francisco A. Alcuaz, Bonifacio P. Ilagan, & Col. George A. Rabusa (Ret. ); (7) Former Senator Rene A.V. Saguisag; ( 8 ) Bishop Broderick S. Pabillo, D.D.; (9) Secretary Gen. of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) Renato M. Reyes, Jr.; (10) Member of MDD Youth (an Affiliate of Aksyon Demokratiko) Kaye Ann Legaspi; and (11) Secretary General of National Union of People's Lawyers Atty. Ephraim B. Cortez (Zarate, et al.,) filed a Motion for Leave to File Motion to Intervene and Opposition-in-Intervention, pursuant to Rule 19 of the Rules of Court. They claim that as citizens and taxpayers, they have a legal interest in the matter of respondent's ouster or removal.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #30 on: May 29, 2018, 12:51:02 PM »

Decision                              29                             G.R. No. 237428

Zarate et al. raise the similar argument that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court may only 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 and that it is only the Congress who has the power to remove the Chief Justice through the exclusive mode of impeachment.

They further argue that the issue of respondent'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. They argue that the qualification of having a "proven integrity" is a standard subject to the discretion of, first, the JBC who submits the list of qualified candidates; and second, of the President, who will select among the shortlist whom to appoint as Chief Justice.

Movant-Intervenor Rene A.V. Saguisag subsequently filed a Supplement to Motion for Leave to File Motion to Intervene and Opposition-in-Intervention Cum Petition to Recuse seeking the inhibition of unnamed Members of this Court who "may have prematurely thrown their weight on the other side, actually or perceptually" on the ground that respondent is entitled to an impartial arbiter.

As well, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) filed its Motion for Leave to File and to Admit Attached Opposition-in-Intervention as an organization of all Philippine lawyers, having the fundamental duty to uphold the Constitution and an interest in ensuring the validity of the appointments to the Judiciary. The IBP's arguments reflect the arguments of the respondent and the other movant-intervenors that the quo warranto petition is time-barred and is unavailable against an impeachable officer. 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. It is likewise the contention of the IBP that the petition is fatally flawed since the JBC never required the submission of respondent's SALNs from 2001 to 2006.

Also seeking to intervene in the instant petition, Senators Leila M. De Lima (Senator De Lima) and Antonio F. Trillanes IV (Senator Trillanes) as citizens, taxpayers, and senators of the Republic, filed a Motion to Intervene and Admit Attached Opposition-In-Intervention (Ad Cautelam) on April 4, 2018.

In the said Motion, Senators De Lima and Trillanes assert that they possess a clear legal interest, both personal and official, in the subject matter of the Republic's petition to oust the Chief justice on the ground that she does not possess the constitutional requirement of integrity. According to Senators De Lima and Trillanes, they have the right and duty to uphold the

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #31 on: May 29, 2018, 01:03:36 PM »

Decision                             30                             G.R. No. 237428

Constitution and to oppose government actions that are clearly and patently unconstitutional. It is also Senators De Lima and Trillanes' theory that the instant quo warranto case is aimed to deprive the Senate of its jurisdiction as the impeachment tribunal. They argue that their mandated duty as judges in the possible impeachment trial of the Chief Justice will be pre-empted and negated if the quo warranto petition will be granted. Their claimed legal interest in their intervention in and opposition to the petition for quo warranto is mainly anchored upon their duty and prerogatives as Senators-judges in an impeachment trial and to protect the institution of impeachment as a mode of enforcing accountability.

Senators De Lima and Trillanes' Opposition-In-Intervention is a mere reiteration of the respondent's argument that this Court has no jurisdiction over a petition for quo warranto against an impeachable officer. They argue that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is, by express provision of the Constitution, removable from office exclusively by impeachment. They also aver that the ground raised in the petition for quo warranto - lack of integrity for failing to submit one's SALN - is part of the allegations in the impeachment case being heard in the House of Representatives. Thus, they argue that the use of an identical ground in a quo warranto proceeding directly undermines the jurisdiction of the Senate to hear and decide impeachment cases and the prerogative of the senators to try the same.

Senators De Lima and Trillanes also advance the argument that the Constitution identifies and enumerates only three qualifications for appointment to the Supreme Court: (1) natural born citizenship; (2) age, i.e., at least forty years; and (3) an experience of at least 15 years either as judge of a lower court or in the practice of law in the Philippines. They assert that the filing of a SALN, taking of psychological or physical examination, and similar requirements, are merely discretionary administrative requirements for consideration of the JBC, not Constitutional requirements, hence, can be waived, removed entirely, or adjusted by the JBC in the exercise of its discretion. According to the said movant-intervenors, Section 7(3), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which states that,"[ a] Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence", does not speak of objective constitutional qualifications, but only of subjective characteristics of a judge. They, therefore, contend that "qualifications" such as citizenship, age, and experience are enforceable while "characteristics" such as competence, integrity, ,probity, and independence are mere subjective considerations.

Corollarily, Senators De Lima and Trillanes argue that the subjective considerations are not susceptible to analysis with tools of legal doctrine. Hence, questions on this matter are for the consideration of political institutions under the Constitution, i.e., the JBC and the President (prior to appointment) and the House of Representatives and the Senate (after

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #32 on: May 29, 2018, 01:12:22 PM »

Decision                              31                          G.R. No. 237428

appointment).

The Motions for Inhibition

By way of separately filed motions, respondent seeks affirmative relief, in the form of the inhibition of five (5) Justices of the Court, the jurisdiction of which she questions and assails. Respondent prays for the inhibition of Associate Justices Lucas P. Bersamin, Diosdado M. Peralta, Francis H. Jardeleza, Noel Gimenez Tijam, and Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro from hearing and deciding the present petition.

In common, respondent imputes actual bias on said Justices for having testified before the House Committee on Justice on the impeachment complaint. In particular, respondent considered Justice Bersamin's allusion to respondent as a "dictator" and his personal resentment about the supposed withdrawal of the privilege previously enjoyed by the members of the Court to recommend nominees to vacant positions in the Judiciary, as evidence of actual bias.

Justice Peralta's inhibition, on the other hand, is being sought because as then Acting ex officio Chairperson of the JBC when respondent was nominated for appointment as Chief Justice, he would have personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings and for having served as a material witness in the matter in controversy.

Justice Jardeleza's inhibition is sought on the ground that his testimony before the House Committee on Justice reveals that he harbors ill feelings towards respondent on account of the latter's challenge to his integrity during the nomination process for the Associate Justice position vice Justice Roberto A. Abad which he characterized as "inhumane".

Respondent seeks the inhibition of Justice Tijam based on the latter's statement as quoted in a Manila Times article to the effect that if respondent continues to ignore and to refuse to participate in the impeachment process, she is clearly liable for culpable violation of the Constitution.

Respondent likewise made mention that Justice Tijam and Justice Bersamin wore a touch of red during the "Red Monday" protest on March 12, 2018 wherein judges and court employees reportedly called on respondent to make the supreme sacrifice and resign.

Respondent also calls for the inhibition of Justice De Castro for having allegedly prejudged the issue as regards the validity of respondent's nomination and appointment in 2012 when Justice De Castro testified under oath during the House Committee on Justice hearings that respondent should have been disqualified from the shortlist on account of the SALNs she

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #33 on: May 29, 2018, 01:32:39 PM »

Decision                             32                             G.R. No. 237428

allegedly failed to submit.

At the last minute, respondent also seeks to disqualify Justice Samuel R. Martires for his purported insinuations during the Oral Arguments questioning her "mental" or "psychological" fitness on the basis of her belief that God is "the source of everything in (her) life."(89)

Respondent also prays that the Ad Cautelam Respectful Motions for Inhibitions of Associate Justices Peralta, Leonardo-De Castro, Jardeleza, Tijam, Bersamin and Martires be resolved by the Court En Banc, without the participation of the Justices she seeks to disqualify.

The Issues

From the arguments raised by the parties and the issues as delineated in the Advisory governing the special Oral Arguments by way of accommodation to respondent, the paramount issues to be resolved by the Court are:

1. Whether the Court can assume jurisdiction and give due course to the instant petition for quo warranto against respondent who is an impeachable officer and against whom an impeachment complaint has already been filed with the House of Representatives;

2. Whether the petition is outrightly dismissible on the ground of prescription;

3. Whether respondent is eligible for the position of Chief Justice:

    a. Whether the determination of a candidate's eligibility for nomination is the sole and exclusive function of the JBC and whether such determination. partakes of the character of a political question outside the Court's supervisory and review powers;

    b. Whether respondent failed to file her SALNs as mandated by the Constitution and required by the law and its implementing rules and regulations; and if so, whether the failure to file SALNs voids the nomination and appointment of respondent as Chief Justice;

    c. Whether respondent failed to comply with the submission of SALNs as required by the JBC; and if so, whether the failure to submit SALNs to the JBC voids the nomination and appointment of respondent as Chief Justice;

-------
89 Id.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #34 on: May 29, 2018, 02:16:01 PM »

Decision                             33                             G.R. No. 237428

    d. In case of a finding that respondent is ineligible to hold the position of Chief Justice, whether the subsequent nomination by the JBC and the appointment by the President cured such ineligibility.

4. Whether respondent is a de Jure or de facto officer.

The Ruling of the Court

Preliminary Issues

Intervention is an ancillary remedy
restricted in purpose and in time


Intervention is a remedy by which a 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.(90)

Nevertheless, the remedy of intervention is not a matter of right but rests on the sound discretion of the court upon compliance with the first requirement on legal interest and the second requirement that no delay and prejudice should result as spelled out under Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, as follows:

    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 a 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.

Each of the movant-intervenors in this case seek to intervene as citizens and taxpayers, whose claimed interest to justify their intervention is their "sense of patriotism and their common desire to protect and uphold the Philippine Constitution". The movant-intervenors further assert a "public right" to intervene in the instant case by virtue of its "transcendental importance for the Filipino people as a whole". Apart from such naked allegations, movant-intervenors failed to establish to the Court's satisfaction the required legal interest. Our jurisprudence is well-settled on the matter:

Intervention 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. Under our Rules of Court, what qualifies a person to intervene is his possession of a legal

-------
90 Hi-Tone Marketing Corp. v. Baikal Realty Corp., 480 Phil. 545, 569 (2004).

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #35 on: May 29, 2018, 05:56:59 PM »

Decision                             34                             G.R. No. 237428

interest in the matter in litigation or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both; or 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.x x x. (91) (Emphasis ours)

Clearly, herein movant-intervenors' sentiments, no matter how noble, do not, in any way, come within the purview of the concept of "legal interest" contemplated under the Rules to justify the allowance of intervention. Movant-intervenors failed to show any legal interest of such nature that they will "either gain or lose by the direct legal operation of the judgment". Even the IBP's assertion of their "fundamental duty to uphold the Constitution, advocate for the rule of law, and safeguard the administration of justice", being the official organization of all Philippine lawyers, will not suffice. Admittedly, their interest is merely out of "sentimental desire" to uphold the rule of law. Meanwhile, Senators De Lima and Trillanes' claimed legal interest is mainly grounded upon their would-be participation in the impeachment trial as Senators-judges if the articles of impeachment will be filed before the Senate as the impeachment court. Nevertheless, the fact remains that as of the moment, such interest is still contingent on the filing of the articles of impeachment before the Senate. It bears stressing that the interest contemplated by law must be actual, substantial, material, direct and immediate, and not simply contingent or expectant.(92)

Indeed, if every person, not parties to the action but assert their desire to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, were allowed to intervene, proceedings would become unnecessarily complicated, expensive, and interminable.(93)

Emphatically, a quo warranto proceeding is an action by the government against individuals unlawfully holding an office. Section 1, Rule 66 provides:

Section 1. Action by Government against individuals. - An action for the usurpation of a public office, position or franchise may be commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against:

-------
91 Ongco v. Dalisay, 691 Phil. 462, 469-4 70 (2012) citing Hon. Executive Secretary, et al. v.
Northeast Freight Forwarders, Inc.
, 600 Phil. 789, 799 (2009).
92 Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Heirs of Estanis/ao Mifloza, 656 Phil. 537, 547
(2011 ).
93 Id. at 547-548.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #36 on: May 29, 2018, 09:25:15 PM »

Decision                             35                             G.R. No. 237428

    (a) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise;
 
    (b) A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provision of law, constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his office; or

    (c) An association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act.

The remedy of quo warranto is vested in the people, and not in any private individual or group, because disputes over title to public office are viewed as a public question of governmental legitimacy and not merely a private quarrel among rival claimants.(94)

Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, (95) historically traced the nature of quo warranto proceedings as a crime which could only be prosecuted in the name of the King by his duly authorized law officers. In time, the criminal features of quo warranto proceedings were modified and as such, the writ came to be used as a means to determine which of two claimants was entitled to an office and to order the ouster and the payment of a fine against the usurper. This quasi-criminal nature of quo warranto proceedings was adopted in some American states. Nonetheless, Newman explains that the Code of the District of Colombia, which was the venue of the case, continues to treat usurpation of office as a public wrong which can be corrected only by proceeding in the name of the government itself. Thus:

In a sense - in a very important sense - every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law, in the administration of law, and in having only qualified officers execute the law. But that general interest is not a private, but a public interest. Being such, it is to be  represented by the Attorney General or the District Attorney, who are expected by themselves or those they authorize to institute quo warranto proceedings against usurpers in the same way that they are expected to institute proceedings against any other violator of the law. That general public interest is not sufficient to authorize a private citizen to institute such proceedings, for, if it was, then every citizen and every taxpayer would have the same interest and the same right to institute such proceedings, and a public officer might, from the beginning to the end of his term, be harassed with proceedings to try his title.

The only time that an individual, in his own name, may bring an action for quo warranto is when such individual has a claim over the position in question. Section 5 of Rule 66 of the Rules of Court provides:

-----
94 Oakland Municipal Improvement league v. City of Oakland (1972) 23 Cal. App. 30 165, 170.
95 238 U.S. 537 (1915).

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #37 on: May 29, 2018, 09:53:44 PM »

Decision                             36                             G.R. No. 237428

    Section 5. When an individual may commence such an action. - A person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another may bring an action therefor in his own name.

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 respondent's allegations and arguments in her Comment.

For these reasons, the Court, in its Resolution(96) dated April 3, 2018, resolved to deny the motions for intervention respectively filed by Capistrano et al., and Zarate et al., and to note the IBP's intervention. For similar reasons, the Court resolves to deny the motion for intervention of Senators De Lima and Trillanes.

No basis for the Associate Justices
of the Supreme Court to inhibit in
the case


The instant petition comes at the heels of the recently-concluded hearings on the determination of probable cause in the impeachment complaint against respondent before the House Committee on Justice. Several Members of the Court, both incumbent and retired, were invited, under pain of contempt, to serve as resource persons. Those Members who were present at the Committee hearings were armed with the requisite imprimatur of the Court En Banc, given that the Members are to testify only on matters within their personal knowledge and insofar as material and relevant to the issues being heard. For lack of particularity, the Court supposes that the attendance of some of its Members in the House Committee hearings is the basis of movant-intervenor Saguisag's motion to recuse.

On the other hand, respondent was more emphatic when she sought affirmative relief, in the form of the inhibition of six ( 6) Justices, of the Court, whose jurisdiction she questions and assails. Specifically, respondent prays forĀ· the inhibition of Associate Justices Lucas P. Bersamin, Diosdado M. Peralta, Francis H. Jardeleza, Noel Gimenez Tijam, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro and Samuel R. Martires fundamentally on the ground of actual bias for having commonly testified before the House Committee on Justice on the impeachment case.

-------
96 Rollo, pp. 501-505.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #38 on: May 30, 2018, 03:27:52 AM »

Decision                             37                             G.R. No. 237428

As for Justice Samuel R. Martires, respondent concludes Justice Martires' manifested actual bias based on his statements during the Oral Arguments which purportedly tended to question respondent's mental and psychological fitness.

In particular, respondent seeks the inhibition of Justice Tijam based on the latter's statement as quoted in a Manila Times article to the effect that if respondent continues to ignore and to refuse to participate in the impeachment process, she is clearly liable for culpable violation of the Constitution.

Respondent cites the article entitled, "Appear in Congress or vio1ate Constitution," dated December 4, 2017, where Justice Tijam was purportedly quoted to have said:

Impeachment is a constitutional process and a mandate enshrined in the Constitution. Justices took an oath to defend, preserve, protect the Constitution. If Chief Justice Sereno continues to ignore and continues to refuse to participate in the impeachment process, ergo, she is clearly liable for culpable violation of the Constitution. (emphasis supplied)

Respondent claims that the aforesaid statements of Justice Tijam are indicative of his stance that there may be a ground to impeach and remove respondent from office, which is also the objective of the quo warranto petition against her.

Ultimately, the cause for inhibition simmers to the question of whether, in so appearing and testifying before the House Committee on Justice, the Members of the Court are precluded from hearing and deciding the instant petition for quo warranto. To this, the Court answers in the negative.

Jurisprudence recognizes the right of litigants to seek disqualification of judges. Indeed, elementary due process requires a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal. "A judge has both the duty of rendering a just decision and the duty of doing it in a manner completely free from suspicion as to its fairness and as to his integrity."(97)

However, the right of a party to seek the inhibition or disqualification of a judge who does not appear to be wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent in handling the case must be balanced with the latter's sacred duty to decide cases without fear of repression. The movant must therefore prove the ground of bias and prejudice by clear and convincing evidence to disqualify a judge from participating in a particular trial. "[W]hile it is settled principle that opinions formed in the course of judicial

-------
97 Query of Exec. Judge Estrada, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, 239 Phil. 1, 6 (1987).

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

islander

  • SUPREME COURT
  • THE LEGEND
  • *****
  • Posts: 46867
  • If you're from Pluto, you're welcome.
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Travel Tickets
Re: Opinions by SC on the Sereno quo warranto case, full text/s
« Reply #39 on: June 09, 2018, 01:44:34 AM »

Decision                             38                             G.R. No. 237428

proceedings, based on the evidence presented and conduct observed by the judge, do not prove personal bias or prejudice on the part of the judge."(98)

A circumspect reading of Justice Tijam's statements in the Manila Times article reveals that the manifest intent of the statements was only to prod respondent to observe and respect the constitutional process of impeachment, and to exemplify the ideals of public accountability, thus:

    He added that he wanted to encourage Sereno to show up at the Congress hearings "to respect and participate in the impeachment (process), and to defend herself and protect the institution."

    Sereno, he said, should be a role model when it comes to respecting the Constitution.

    "Impeachment is not an invention of politicians. It was drafted by the framers of the Constitution. Media, which propagates the myth that impeachment is a numbers game, hence, is political and arbitrary, fails to emphasize the fact that the rule of the majority is the essence of democracy," the m_agistrate stressed.

    Tijam believes that the impeachment process against Sereno is not an attack on the high court or the Judiciary because the Supreme Court does not consist of the chief justice alone.

    "Impeachment is [neither] an assault on the Judiciary nor an infringement on the independence of the Judiciary, because it is enshrined in the Constitution.  Parenthetically, when the SC strikes down acts of Congress and acts of the President and the Executive Department for being unlawful and unconstitutional, the SC is not assaulting the independence of Congress and the Executive Department because the expanded power of judicial review is enshrined in the Constitution," Tijam pointed out.

    Sereno, he said, should be a role model when it comes to respecting the Constitution.(99) (Emphasis ours)

Notably, respondent conveniently and casually invoked only a portion of the article which suited her objective of imputing bias against Justice Tijam.

As to the act of wearing a red tie which purportedly establishes Justices Tijam and Bersamin's prejudice against her, the argument is baseless and unfair. There is no basis, whether in logic or in law, to establish a connection between a piece of clothing and a magistrate's performance of adjudicatory functions. Absent compelling proof to the contrary, the red piece of clothing was merely coincidental and should not be deemed a sufficient ground to disqualify them.

-------
98 People v. Hon. Ong, 523 Phil. 347, 358 (2006).
99 <http://www.manilatimes.net/appear-congress-violate-constitution/366575/> (visited on April 6,
2018).

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0
Republic Act 8485 (Animal Welfare Act of 1998, Philippines), as amended and strengthened by House  Bill 6893 of 2013--- violation means a maximum of P250,000 fine with a corresponding three-year jail term and a minimum of P30,000 fine and six months imprisonment

Book your travel tickets anywhere in the world, go to www.12go.co

unionbank online loan application low interest, credit card, easy and fast approval

Tags: