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

G.R. No. 237428  June 19, 2018

EN BANC

TIJAM, J.:

FACTS:

1.  On March 15, 2018, a Quo Warranto petition ought to oust CJ Sereno was filed by the Office of the Solicitor General thru Jose Callida on the ground of her non-submission of her SALNs for the years: 1986, 1987, 1988, 1992, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006; the passing of which is a pre-requisite to be considered as a person of integrity. Being a person of proven integrity is one of the qualifications for such appointment.

2. Sereno argued that the Court has no jurisdiction over the matter and that she can only be removed from office thru impeachment. She also moved that resolution of this case by the Supreme court would violate the separation of powers since it was expressly provided in the Constitution that impeachment cases can only be heard by the Senate. 

ISSUE:

1.Whether or not Sereno is guilty of unlawfully holding and exercising the Office of the Chief Justice. 

2. Whether or not Quo Warranto heard by the Supreme Court is the proper constitutional petition for Sereno's ouster and not an impeachment case by the Senate.

3. Whether or not Supreme Court's taking jurisdiction over this case violates the separation of powers. 

RULING:

1. YES. She was pronounced guilty of unlawfully exercising the office and functions of a Chief Justice. Although nominated by the JBC, Sereno's failure to submit her SALNs for various years  warranted the assumption that she is not a person of proven integrity, which is one of qualifications of a chief justice. Thus, failing to meet all the necessary qualification renders her ineligible and her judicial exercise as a Chief Justice is unlawful.

2. YES. Quo Warranto is the proper constitutional course to oust herein respondent. Although Sec. 2, Article X. states that a Chief Justice is an impeachable officer that MAY only be removed from office thru an impeachment case, impeachment is not the sole way to remove her from office since her unprecedented case was instituted not on the grounds of impeachment but on the ground that she is disqualified and shouldn't have assumed the seat in the first place.  Thus, Quo Warranto petition was appropriate.

3. NO. SC's hearing and deciding on this case is not a violation of the separation of powers.

Sec. 5(1), Article VII. of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the original jurisdiction over petitions including Quo Warranto.  Sincet this is a quo warranto petition, there exists no usurpation of the Senate's sole power to hear impeachment cases since this wasn't an impeachment trial. 

Wherefore, Quo Warranto is GRANTED. Maria Lourdes Sereno is found DISQUALIFIED and adjudge GUILTY of UNLAWFULLY HOLDING and EXERCISING the OFFICE of the CHIEF JUSTICE.