Caguioa

EN BANC
G.R. No. 237428 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by

SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA, petitioner, versus HON.
CIDEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO, respondent.
Promulgated:
May 11, 201'& /

x------------------------------------5-----"X
DISSENTING OPINION
CAGUIOA, J.:
"Integrity is the ability to stand by an idea. "
- Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead
This quo warranto petition is brought before the Court purportedly to

test the integrity of the Chief Justice. However, what it really tests is the
integrity of the Court - its ability to stand by an idea. The idea is simple,
clearly stated in the Constitution, and consistently upheld by the Court in its
jurisprudence before today: impeachable officers, by express constitutional
command, may only be removed from office by impeachment. By ousting the
Chief Justice through the expediency of holding that the Chief Justice failed
this "test" of integrity, it is actually the Court that fails.
The petitioner Solicitor General describes this new and creative mode
of removing an impeachable officer as the "road less travelled by." But there
is a reason why it has never been taken - it is not a sanctioned road. Refusing
to see the impassability of this "road," the Solicitor General forges on,
equivocating between grounds of impeachment and grounds for questioning
eligibility for appointment, between the appropriate mode to question and the
effects of non-submission of the Sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities and
Net Worth (SALN) to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) during the
application process for appointments in the Judiciary and the non-filing of
SALN punishable under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713. He attempts to
sidestep the unconstitutionality of the consequent ouster he prays for in this
quo warranto proceeding by drawing a false dichotomy between acts done
prior to appointment as against acts done during the holding of office.
Contrary to the decision reached by the majority, it is my view that the

quo warranto must fail for the following reasons:
I. Quo warranto, except only as explicitly allowed by the

Constitution to be filed against the President or Vice President
Dissenting Opinion 2 G.R. No. 237428
under the rules promulgated by the Presidential Electoral Tribunal

(PET), is not available as a mode of removal from office for
impeachable officers by the clear command of Article XI, Section
2 of the Constitution;
2. Even assuming that quo warranto is available, the alleged non

submission or incomplete submission of SALN to the JBC is not a
valid ground to question the eligibility of the respondent, the SALN
not being a constitutional requirement for the position of Chief
Justice.
3. Even assuming that quo warranto is available, and that the non
submission or incomplete submission of the SALN to the JBC can
somehow be raised to a level of a constitutional requirement, the
one-year prescriptive period for the filing of quo warranto lapsed
one year after the appointment of or assumption of office by the
respondent as Chief Justice in 2012;
4. Even assuming again, that the non-submission or incomplete

submission of the SALN to the JBC is a ground to disqualify the
respondent from being placed in the short list, the records show that
the JBC considered the submissions of the respondent Chief Justice
as substantial compliance. Any defect in the exercise of discretion
by the JBC should have been assailed via certiorari, prior to the
respondent's appointment. This was not done and can no longer be
done through this quo warranto petition.
5. Even assuming again, that the non-filing of the SALN under R.A.
No. 6713 may lead to the removal from office of an impeachable
officer, it cannot be done by quo warranto, but through the
procedure in Section 11 of R.A. No. 6713.
6. And finally, even assuming that quo warranto is available to remove

an impeachable officer for violation ofR.A. No. 6713 separate from
the procedure provided in that law, the Solicitor General failed to
prove the non-filing of SALN by the respondent-- the evidentiary
value of the Certifications from the University of the Philippines
Human Resources Development Office (UP HRDO) and the Office
of the Ombudsman having been destroyed by the discovery of other
SALNs filed that were not found in the custodian's possession.
Contrary to what has been bandied about, this case does not present any
novel legal or constitutional question. This is not a case of first impression.
This case is nothing more than cheap trickery couched as some gaudy
innovation. Thus, in disposing of this case, it does not take a lot to state plainly
the truth; it takes infinitely more effort to hide and bury it.
Save for quo warranto which may be

filed against the President and Vice-
President, impeachment is the only
mode of removal for impeachable
officers.
The concept of impeachment was first introduced in the Philippines

through the 1935 Constitution.1 The adoption of impeachment as a method of
removing public officers from service was "inspired by existing practice both
in the federal and in the state governments of the United States."2
As approved, Article IX of the 1935 Constitution read:
SECTION I. The President, the Vice-President, the Justices of the Supreme

Court, and the Auditor General, shall be removed from office on
impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution,
treason, bribery, or other high crimes.
SECTION 2. The Commission on Impeachment of the National Assembly,

by a vote of two-thirds of its Members, shall have the sole power of
impeachment.
SECTION 3. The National Assembly shall have the sole power to try all
impeachments. When sitting for that purpose the Members shall be on oath
or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. No person shall be convicted
without the concurrence of three-fourths of all the Members who do not
belong to the Commission on Impeachment.
SECTION 4. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further

then to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office
of honor, trust, or profit under the Government of the Philippines, but the
party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial,
and punishment, according to law.
While the impeachment provisions found in the 1935 Constitution rest

on American foundations, the material changes made by its framers resulted
in an impeachment mechanism bound by stricter standards than its American
counterpart, in view of the following features: (i) a narrower base (due to its
applicability only to the "highest constitutional officers"3) ; (ii) a wider scope
(due to the expansion of grounds upon which removal by impeachment may
be based); and (iii) a higher threshold for conviction.
Esteemed Constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas explains the

significance behind these stricter standards, thus:
II Jose M. Aruego, The Framing of the Philippine Constitution 587 (1937).

2 Id.
3
I Joaquin G. Bernas, The (Revised) 1973 Philippine Constitution, Notes and Cases 892 (1983).
Coming now to the prov1s1ons of our Constitution regarding

impeachment, it wi11 be noted that they differ from the U.S. Constitution in
three material respects. Firstly, instead ofrendering every civil officer liable
to impeachment, our Constitution limits the number of impeachable
officials to the President, Vice-President, Justices of the Supreme Court, the
Auditor General, and members of the Commission on Elections. In other
words, whereas in the United States even the most subordinate civil officer
is subject to impeachment, here only the highest constitutional officials of
the different departments of the government (except the legislative) are
removable by impeachment. Secondly, instead of"treason, bribery, or other
high crimes and misdemeanors" being the grounds for impeachment, our
Constitution makes "culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery,
or other high crimes" the ground[s] for impeachment. xx x Thirdly, instead
of a majority vote being sufficient for the House to impeach and a two-thirds
vote for the Senate, to convict, in our Constitution, a two-thirds of the House
is required for impeachment and a three-fourths of the Senate to convict.
The three points of difference between our Constitution and the U.S.
Constitution, just pointed out, are of great significance. It is plain and
evident that the intention of the framers of our Constitution was to
impress upon the members of our Congress the gravity of their
responsibility for initiating and trying an impeachment and the
necessity of proceeding slowly and with the utmost caution in the filing
of impeachment charges, considering that the impeachable officials
occupy the highest constitutional positions in the land. It is likewise
plain and evident that the framers of our Constitution wanted to
discourage the filing of impeachment charges inspired solely by
personal or partisan considerations, considering the two-thirds vote
required for the House to impeach and the three-fourths vote of the
Senate to convict.4 (Emphasis supplied)
The impeachment provisions under the 1935 Constitution were

substantially re-adopted under the 1973 Constitution, save for the addition of
graft and corruption as grounds for impeachment, and the consolidation of the
power to initiate and try impeachment cases in favor of a single legislative
body, that is, the National Assembly.5
Subsequently, the 1973 impeachment provisions were carried over to

the present Constitution, with the addition of betrayal of public trust as another
ground, and the restructuring of the impeachment process to facilitate the
allocation of impeachment powers to a bicameral legislature.6
While proposals to transfer the "powers of impeachment trial"7 from

the legislature to the judiciary had been put forth by Commissioner Felicitas
S. Aquino during the 1986 Constitutional deliberations, the body ultimately
rejected said proposal by a vote of 25-13.8
4
I Joaquin G. Bernas, id.
I Joaquin G. Bernas, id. at 889.
6
See 1987 CONSTITUTION, Art. XI, Secs. 2 and 3.
7
As distinguished from the power to initiate the impeachment process through the formulation of the
impeachment articles. See II RECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION: PROCEEDINGS AND
D EBATES, p p . 353-354, 371-372 (1986).
8 Id. at 372.
Hence, at present, the provisions governing impeachment under the

1987 Constitution state:
Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the

Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the
Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and
conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft
and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other
public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by
law, but not by impeachment.
Section 3. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive

power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any

Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution
or endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be included in the
Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper
Committee within three session days thereafter. The Committee, after
hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, sha11 submit its report to
the House within sixty session days from such referral, together with the
corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for
consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof.
(3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall
be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of
Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The
vote of each Member shall be recorded.
(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is

filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall
constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall
forthwith proceed.
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same

official more than once within a period of one year.
(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases
of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath
or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person
shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members
of the Senate.
(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than

removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the
Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be
liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.
(8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to

effectively carry out the purpose of this section.9
9
1987 CONSTITUTION, Art. XI, Secs. 2 and 3.
The ponencia holds that Article XI of the 1987 Constitution permits the
removal of impeachable officers through modes other than impeachment, on
the basis of the following premises:
1. Pursuant to the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) Rules, the

eligibility of the President and Vice-President, both of whom are
impeachable officers, may be questioned through a petition for quo
warranto, thereby negating the notion of exclusivity;
2. Section 2, Article XI permits resort to alternative modes of removal,

as implied by the use of the word "may" in reference to the
impeachment mechanism; and
3. Jurisprudence permits cognizance of quo warranto petitions filed

against impeachable officers.
As will be discussed henceforth, the foregoing premises, and the

conclusion which they purportedly support, are grossly erroneous.
Quo warranto challenging the election,

returns, and qualifications of the
President and Vice-President is
explicitly sanctioned by the
Constitution.
The ponencia exclaims that the allowance of quo warranto under the
PET Rules negates respondent's assertion that impeachment is the exclusive
mode by which she may be removed from office.10 The ponencia explains:
Even the PET Rules expressly provide for the remedy of either an
election protest or a petition for quo warranto to question the eligibility of
the President and the Vice President, both of whom are impeachable
officers. Following respondent's theory that an impeachable officer can be
removed only through impeachment means that the President or Vice
President against whom an election protest has been filed can demand for
the dismissal of the protest on the ground that it can potentially cause his/her
removal from office through a mode other than by impeachment. x x x11
This is egregious error.
Lest it be overlooked, the filing of election protests assailing the

qualifications of the President and Vice-President is a remedy explicitly
sanctioned by the Constitution itself, particularly, under Article VII thereof,
thus:
10
See ponencia, p. 57.
I I I d.
Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by

direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon
on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall
end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The President shall not
be eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded as President
and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for
election to the same office at any time.
xxxx
The Supreme Court, sitting en bane, shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the
President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the
purpose. (Emphasis supplied)
The proposition that quo warranto is available as against the President

and Vice President only because of the express constitutional commitment
under Article VII, Section 4 is supported by the basis of the same authorities 12
used by the ponencia to say that quo warranto is available and has not
prescribed:13
§644. Ordinarily it would seem to be a sufficient objection to the exercise

of the jurisdiction against a public officer that the case as presented is one
in which the court can not give judgment of ouster, even should the relator
succeed. Thus, an information [in quo warranto] will not be allowed against
certain magistrates to compel them to show by what authority they grant
licenses within a jurisdiction alleged to pertain to other magistrates, since
there can not in such case be judgment of ouster or of seizure in the hands
of the crown.
xxxx
§646a. When, under the constitution of a state, the power to determine the
elections, returns and qualifications of members of the legislature is vested
exclusively in each house as to its own members, the courts are powerless
to entertain jurisdiction in quo warranto to determine the title of a member
of the legislature. In such case, the constitution having expressly lodged the
power of determining such question in another body, the courts cannot
assume jurisdiction in quo warranto, but will have to leave the question to
the tribunal fixed by the constitution.xx x14 (Citations omitted)
By parity of reasoning, except only for the textual commitment in the

Constitution to the PET of the power to determine the qualification of the
President and Vice President via quo warranto under the PET Rules, the
unavailability of quo warranto under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court extends
to both elective and appointive impeachment officers.
12
People v. Bailey, 30 Cal.App. 581 (1916) and State of Rhode Island v. Pawtuxet Turnpike Co., 8 R.I.
521 (R.I. 1867).
13
Ponencia, pp. 75-79.
14
High, on Extraordinary Remedies, pp. 600-602.
Time and again, this Court has ruled that the Constitution is to be
interpreted as a whole; one mandate should not be given importance over the
other except where the primacy of one over the other is clear.15 Meaning, even
as Section 4, Article VII provides an exception to Section 2, Article XI, this
exception should not be unduly extended to apply to impeachable officers
other than the President and Vice-President. Such exception is specific and
narrow, and should not be interpreted in a manner that subverts the entire
impeachment mechanism.
The spirit, intent and purpose behind the

impeachment provisions remain the
same, despite the structural changes
implemented since their initial adoption.
According to the ponencia, the language employed by Article XI,

particularly, Section 2 thereof, permits alternative modes of removing
impeachable officers from office,16 claiming that the use of the phrase "may
be removed", in contrast with the phrase "shall be removed" in its counterpart
provisions found in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, indicate such intent.
This interpretation is fundamentally flawed as it puts unwarranted

primacy on "legal hermeneutics" at the expense of Constitutional intent. As
the deliberations indicate, the spirit, intent and purpose behind the
impeachment provisions remain the same, despite the structural changes
implemented since their initial adoption.
The fact that the word "may" generally denotes discretion is well taken;
this interpretation proceeds from the word's ordinary usage and meaning.
Indeed, the Court has, in several cases,17 construed "may" as permissive in
nature, consistent with the basic principle of statutory interpretation which
requires, as a general rule, that words used in law be given their ordinary
meaning. 18 Nevertheless, such general principle admits of exceptions, as when
"a contrary intent is manifest from the law itself '19 or, more notably, when the
act to which it refers constitutes a public duty or concerns public interest.20
De Mesa v. Mencias21 teaches:
x x x While the ordinary acceptations of [the terms "may" and

"shall"] may indeed be resorted to as guides in the ascertainment of the
15
On the holistic interpretation of the Constitution, see generally Ahas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines,
675 Phil. 316,380 (201!).
16
See ponencia, p. 50.
17
See generally Bersabal v. Salvador, 173 Phil. 379 (1978); Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. v.
National Telecommunications Commission, 216 Phil. 185, 195 (1984); and Tan v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 283 Phil. 692, 701 (1992).
18
See generally Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission, id.
at 195.
19 Id.
20
See generally De Mesa v. Mencias, 124 Phil. 1187 (1966).
21 Id.
mandatory or directory character of statutory provisions, they are in no

wise absolute and inflexible criteria in the vast areas of law and equity.
Depending upon a consideration of the entire provision, its nature, its
object and the consequences that would follow from construing it one
way or the other, the convertibility of said terms either as mandatory
or permissive is a standard recourse in statutory construction. Thus,
Black is authority for the rule that "Where the statute provides for the
doing of some act which is required by justice or public duty, or where
it invests a public body, municipality or public officer with power and
authority to take some action which concerns the public interest or
rights of individuals, the permissive language will be construed as
mandatory and the execution of the power may be insisted upon as a
duty[.]"22 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
To further support this position, the ponencia quotes a passage from

Burke Shartel's Federal Judges: Appointment, Supervision, and Removal:
Some Possibilities under the Constitution where the author opines that the
"express provision for removal by impeachment ought not to be taken as a
tacit prohibition of removal by other methods when there are other adequate
reasons to account for this express provision;" and concludes that "logic and
sound policy demand that the Congressional power be construed to be a
concurrent, not an exclusive, power of removal."23 According to the ponencia,
this interesting and valid observation deals with "a parallel provision on
impeachment under the U.S. Constitution from which ours was heavily
patterned."
While the observation may be valid as to the U.S. formulation of

impeachment, it is entirely inapplicable to the Philippine formulation and
interpretation of impeachment. To use this as support to say that in the
application of the "parallel" impeachment provision in Article XI, Section 2,
the power to remove is concurrent between the Legislature through
impeachment and the Judiciary through quo warranto is downright
misleading.
There are indeed parallel provisions relating to impeachment between

the Constitution of the United States and ours.24 However, the scope of the
application and the grounds for impeachment are vastly different. This 1s
easily shown when these "parallel" provisions are placed side by side.
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States reads:
22
Id. at 1196-1197.
23
24
For example, U.S. CONST. art. I, §2, cl. 5 and Article XI, Section 3(1) of the 1987 Constitution on the
sole or exclusive power of the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment; U.S. CONST. art. I,
§3, cl. 6, 7 and Article XI, Sections 3(6) and 3(7) of the 1987 Constitution on the sole power of the
Senate to try cases of impeachment, the requirement of oath and affirmation upon the Senators, and what
may be adjudged in the said cases; U.S. CONST. art. I, §2 and Article VII, Section 19 of the 1987
Constitution excepting cases of impeachment from the power of the President to grant reprieves and
pardons.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution reads:
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.
Obviously, the power to remove by the Legislature under the

Constitution of the United States is necessarily construed as a concurrent
power because impeachment in the United States covers not only the
President, Vice President, and the heads of coordinate departments and
constitutional commissions, but all civil officers, such as federal court judges
and lesser executive functionaries. Shartel opines that these lesser
functionaries, federal court judges in particular, be subject to removal for
other offenses or defects. Unlike in the United States, lower court judges in
the Philippines may be ordered dismissed by the Court in the exercise of its
administrative and disciplinary powers,25 and lesser executive functionaries
are subject to the appointing authority's power of removal and the jurisdiction
of the Office of the Ombudsman or the Sandiganbayan, as the case may be.
The same consid rations by Shartel do not obtain in the impeachment
provision that limits itself to the highest public officers of the departments of
government. As well, the language of Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution,
supported by the deliberations,26 cannot admit of the interpretation that the
power to remove these impeachable officers is concurrent.
To be sure, the use ofShartel's exposition justifying the removal of federal

judges by judicial action on the ground that impeachment is a "limited legislative
method for removal" does not find application in our jurisdiction. Contrary to the
ponencia's conclusion that the absolute enumeration of"impeachable offenses"
cannot be a complete statement of the causes of removal from office, the
constitutional deliberations 27 and the contemporaneous interpretation of the
Legislature 28 bear out that virtually all offenses serious enough to warrant
removal of those key impeachable officers can be grounds for impeachment.
25
1987 CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 6 and 11.
26
See II RECORD OF THE CONSTlTUTIONAL COMMISSION: PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES, pp. 272-274 (1986)
on the discussions relating specifically with the language of Art. XI, Sec. 2 vis-a-vis P.D. No. 1606.
21 Id.
28
In the impeachment of former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, the seven (7) out of eight (8) Articles of
Impeachment charged "betrayal of public trust," consistent with the "catch-all" nature of the said ground
as deliberated in II RECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION: PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES, pp.
314-315 (1986).
To stress, the impeachment mechanism had been crafted and

incorporated into the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions to strengthen the
independence of the highest constitutional officers29 by freeing them from
political pressure.30 Accordingly, these provisions should be interpreted in
a manner that serves the policy considerations for which they have been
adopted. To my mind, these policy considerations are crystal clear, and are
too striking to either be ignored or concealed under the cloak of legal
hermeneutics.
Quo warranto cannot proceed against a

member of the Supreme Court.
The ponencia draws a distinction between impeachment and quo

warranto, by respectively characterizi:i:ig them as political and judicial nature.31
Proceeding therefrom, the ponencia concludes that both may proceed
independently and simultaneously in order to cause the removal of the
respondent, who, in turn, is a sitting member of the Supreme Court.32
With due respect, I completely disagree - for reasons grounded upon

the principle of separation of powers.
A. The Court's action on the

Petition erodes judicial
independence, and encroaches
upon the legislature's
impeachment powers.
The origin, textual history and structure of the impeachment provisions

inevitably lead to the conclusion that impeachment is the exclusive
mechanism for the removal of incumbent members of the Supreme Court.
This intention 1s easily discernable from the constitutional

deliberations:
MR. REGALADO. I propose to add in Section 2 as a last sentence
thereof as already amended the following: ALL OTHER PUBLIC
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES MAY BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE
AS PROVIDED BY LAW BUT NOT BY IMPEACHMENT. The reason
29
I Joaquin G. Bernas, supra note 3.
30
See II RECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL C OMMISSION : PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES, p. 267 (1986).
During the Sponsorship Speech of Commissioner Colayco, he explained the rationale of the inclusion of
the Ombudsman among the list of officers removable only by impeachment, thus:
To give the Ombudsman stature and a certain clout, we are proposing that he be
given the status, the role or the rank of a chainnan of a constitutional commission, as well
as the same salary. If we are going to create an office which will have a lower rank than
this, not even an ordinary employee of the government will bother to obey him. Second, to
free him from political pressure, the Ombudsman cannot be removed except by
impeachment. We hope that with the help of this body, we will receive better and more
practical ideas. But we certainly appeal to the Members not to fail our people.
31
See ponencia, pp. 47-50.
32 See id. at 50-52.
for the amendment is this: While Section 2 enumerates the impeachable

officers, there is nothing that will prevent the legislature as it stands now
from providing also that other officers not enumerated therein shall also be
removable only by impeachment, and that has already happened.
Under Section 1 of P.D. No. 1606, the Sandiganbayan Decree,

justices of the Sandiganbayan may be removed only by impeachment,
unlike their counterparts in the then Court of Appeals. They are, therefore,
a privileged class on the level of the Supreme Court. In the Committee
on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies, there are many commissions
which are sought to be constitutionalized - if I may use the phrase - and
the end result would be that if they are constitutional commissions, the
commissioners there could also be removed only by impeachment. What is
there to prevent the Congress later - because of the lack of this sentence
that I am seeking to add - from providing that officials of certain offices,
although non-constitutional, cannot also be removed except by
impeachment?
xxxx
MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer, the Committee is willing to

accept the amendment of Commissioner Regalado.
xxxx
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Trefias). x x x Is there any

objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.33
xxxx
MR. DAVIDE. X X X
On lines 13 and 14, I move for the deletion of the words "and the
Ombudsman." The Ombudsman should not be placed on the level of the
President and the Vice-President, the members of the judiciary and the
members of the Constitutional Commissions in the matter of removal
from office.
MR. MONSOD. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD. We regret we cannot accept the amendment

because we feel that the Ombudsman is at least on the same level as the
Constitutional Commissioners and this is one way of insulating it from
politics.
MR. DAVIDE. Madam President, to make the members of the

Ombudsman removable only by impeachment would be to enshrine
and install an officer whose functions are not as delicate as the others
whom we wanted to protect from immediate removal by way of an
impeachment.
MR. MONSOD. We feel that an officer in the Ombudsman, if he

does his work well, could be stepping on a lot of toes. We would really
n II RECORD Of' HIE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES, pp. 356-357 (I 986).
prefer to keep him there but we would like the body to vote on it, although
I would like to ask ifwe still have a quorum, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Do we have a quorum? xx x
xxxx
THE PRESIDENT. We have a quorum.
MR. MONSOD. May we restate the proposed amendment for the

benefit of those who were not here a few minutes ago.
xxxx
MR. DAVIDE. The proposed amendment of Commissioner

Rodrigo was the total deletion of the office of the Ombudsman and all
sections relating to it. It was rejected by the body and, therefore, we can
have individual amendments now on the particular sections.
THE PRESIDENT. The purpose of the amendment of

Commissioner Davide is not just to include the Ombudsman among
those officials who have to be removed from office only on
impeachment. Is that right?
MR. DAVIDE. Yes, Madam President.
xxxx
THE PRESIDENT. We will now vote on the amendment.
xxxx
The results show 10 votes in favor and 14 against; the amendment

34
is lost. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
B. This has been the

interpretation accorded by the
Court to Article XI, Section 2 in
extant jurisprudence.
The intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, as reflected in the

records, had been subsequently recognized and accordingly applied in Cuenco
v. Fernan35 (Cuenco), where the Court en bane unanimously36 resolved to
dismiss the disbarment case filed against then Associate Justice Marcelo B.
Fernan (Justice Fernan):
There is another reason why the complaint for disbarment here must
be dismissed. Members of the Supreme Court must, under Article VIII (7)
(1) of the Constitution, be members of the Philippine Bar and may be
removed from office only by impeachment (Article XI [2], Constitution).
34
Id. at 305.
JS 241 Phil. 816 (1988).
36
With Chief Justice Teehankee, and Associate Justices Yap, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr.,
Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento and Cortes concurring. Associate Justices
Fernan and Grifio-Aquino did not participate in the deliberations, and took no part.
To grant a complaint for disbarment of a Member of the Court during

the Member's incumbency, would in effect be to circumvent and hence
to run afoul of the constitutional mandate that Members of the Court
may be removed from office only by impeachment for and conviction
of certain offenses listed in Article XI (2) of the Constitution. x x x37
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The Court subsequently echoed its unequivocal pronouncements in

Cuenca in In re: Gonzalez 38 concerning the same disbarment charges.
Expounding further, the Court held:
It is important to underscore the rule of constitutional law here

involved . This principle may be succinctly formulated in the following
terms: A public officer who under the Constitution is required to be a
Member of the Philippine Bar as a qualification for the office held by him
and who may be removed from office only by impeachment, cannot be
charged with disbarment during the incumbency of such public officer.
Further, such public officer, during his incumbency, cannot be charged
criminally before the Sandiganbayan or any other court with any offense
which carries with it the penalty of removal from office, or any penalty
service of which would amount to removal from office.
xxxx
This is not the first time the Court has had occasion to rule on this
matter. In Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan39 [Lecaroz], the Court said:
"The broad power of the New Constitution vests the

respondent court with jurisdiction over 'public officers and
employees, including those in government-owned or
controlled corporations.' There are exceptions, however,
like constitutional officers, particularly those declared to be
removed by impeachment. Section 2, Article XIII of the
1973 Constitution x x x
x x x [T]he above provision proscribes removal

from office of the aforementioned constitutional officers
by any other method; otherwise, to allow a public officer
who may be removed solely by impeachment to be
charged criminally while holding his office with an
offense that carries the penalty of removal from office,
would be violative of the clear mandate of the
fundamental law.["]
xxxx
The provisions of the 1973 Constitution we referred to above in

Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan are substantially reproduced in Article XI of the
1987 Constitution.
xxxx
37
Cuenca v. Fernan, supra note 35, at 828.
38
243 Phil. 167 (1988).
39
213 Phil. 288, 294 (1999).
It is important to make clear that the Court is not here saying that its
Members or the other constitutional officers we referred to above are
entitled to immunity from liability for possibly criminal acts or for alleged
violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics or other supposed misbehaviour.
What the Court is saying is that there is a fundamental procedural
requirement that must be observed before such liability may be
determined and enforced. A Member of the Supreme Court must first
be removed from office via the constitutional route of impeachment
under Sections .2 and 3 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. Should
the tenure of the Supreme Court Justice be thus terminated by impeachment,
he may then be held to answer either criminally or administratively (by
disbarment proceedings) for any wrong or misbehaviour that may be proven
against him in appropriate proceedings.
The above rule rests on the fundamental principles of judicial

independens;e and separation of powers. The rule is important because
judicial independence is important. Without the protection of this rule,
Members of the Supreme Court would be vulnerable to all manner of
charges which might be brought against them by unsuccessful litigants
or their lawyers or by other parties who, for any number of reasons
might seek to affect the exercise of judicial authority by the Court.
It follows from the foregoing that a fiscal or other prosecuting

officer should forthwith and motu proprio dismiss any charges brought
against a Member of this Court. The remedy of a person with a
legitimate grievance is to file impeachment proceedings.40 (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied)
The ponencia finds the Court's pronouncements in Cuenca, In re:

Gonzalez and Lecaroz inapplicable, as these cases do not delve into the
validity of an impeachable officer's appointment.41 The ponencia reaches the
same conclusion anent the Court's rulings in Jarque v. Desierto42 (Jarque)
and Marco/eta v. Borra43 (Marco/eta).
Instead, the ponencia maintains that "quo warranto is the proper legal
remedy to determine the right or title to [a] contested public office or to oust
the holder [of public office] from its enjoyment,"44 and that this remedy is
available even .against incumbent members of the Supreme Court. 45 The
ponencia justifies this Court's assumption of jurisdiction by invoking the
Court's power of judicial review under Article VIII, Section I of the
Constitution. Further, the ponencia points to the cases of Nacionalista Party
v. De Vera 46 (Nacionalista) and the consolidated cases of Estrada v.
40
In re: Gonzalez, supra note 38, at 169-173.
41
Ponencia, p. 56.
42
A.C. No. 4506, December 5, 1995 (Minute Resolution). In Jarque, the Court, via minute resolution,
resolved to dismiss the complaint for disbarment filed against Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto.
43
601 Phil. 470 (2009). In Marco/eta, the Court resolved to dismiss the complaint for disbarment against
Commissioners Resureccion Borra and Romeo Brawner of the Commission on Elections.
44
Ponencia, p. 50.
45
Id. at 48-49.
46
85 Phil. 126 (1949).
Desierto47 and Estrada v. Macapagal-Arroyo,48 (Estrada cases) as basis to

support its assertions.
As stated earlier, I completely disagree.
The ponencia itself recognizes that the Court can only assume
jurisdiction over a case, and thereby exercise its power of judicial review, "in
the presence of all the requisites." Not all the requisites are present in this case
as the Court is precisely prohibited by the Constitution from assuming
jurisdiction, for the intent was to allow the removal of impeachable officers
only through impeachment. Further, the ponencia is mistaken in invoking the
Court's power of judicial review as there was absolutely no allegation by the
petitioner of grave abuse of discretion on any part of the government as
regards the respondent's appointment.
As regards the cases cited as basis, while Lecaroz, Cuenca, In re:

Gonzalez, Jarque and Marco/eta involve criminal and administrative actions
where the appointment of respondents therein had not been assailed, the
reasons which impelled the Court to dismiss said actions hold true for all
proceedings which seek to remove those officers who, under the
Constitution, may be removed from office only by impeachment.
Verily, the dismissal of the complaints in the afore-cited

disbarment cases had been ordered in furtherance of a single
fundamental purpose - to protect the impeachable officers involved
therein from immediate removal, 49 pursuant to the explicit mandate
enshrined in Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. The protection afforded
by Article XI of the 1987 Constitution applies with equal force and extends to
such officers not only in cases of disbarment, but, also, to all other actions
which seek their ouster through means other than impeachment.
Thus, any ruling which sanctions the removal of a sitting member of

the Supreme Court through alternative modes, be it through an administrative
proceeding (i.e., disbarment) or a judicial proceeding (i.e., criminal action or
quo warranto), would, in effect, be unconstitutional.
Notably, the parameters for the removal of impeachable officers set by

Article XI had not been called for consideration in the Nacionalista and
Estrada cases. In other words, these cases cannot be relied upon to sanction
the removal of an impeachable officer (particularly, an incumbent member of
the Court) through means other than impeachment.
47
406 Phil. I (200 I).
48 Id.
49
II RECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION: PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES, pp. 356-357 (1986).
In Nacionalista, the Court ruled that a petition for prohibition cannot

be resorted to as a substitute for quo warranto where the purpose thereof is
to assail the validity of an appointment into office.50 However, nothing in
Nacionalista upholds the propriety of a quo warranto action as a mode of
removal of a public officer removable only by impeachment. As well, in the
Estrada cases, the Court determined, on the basis of "the totality of prior,
contemporaneous and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence," 51 that
Joseph Estrada had resigned from office, and had left vacant the position of
President at the time Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took her oath of office. The
Court's ruling in the Estrada cases did not direct the removal of Joseph
Estrada through quo warranto, but merely determined that the acts he had
performed prior to his physical departure from Malacafiang Palace
constituted resignation.
To be certain, the grant of quo warranto against an incumbent member

of the Supreme Court does not find any basis in the laws and jurisprudence
cited by the ponencia.
C. Impeachment is a process
textually committed to the
legislature and is beyond the
Court's power of review.
By deliberate constitutional design, the power to initiate and try

impeachment cases has always been, and still remains, a political process
textually committed to the legislature. This constitutional structure is, as
stated, fundamentally grounded upon the principle of separation of powers.
The purpose behind this intricately designed structure resonates with utmost
clarity when considered in connection with the Judiciary and its power of
review.
In Nixon v. United States52 (Nixon), the Supreme Court of the United

States (SCOTUS) unequivocally ruled that the impeachment of a federal
office is not subject to judicial review. In so ruling, SCOTUS emphasized that
judicial involvement in the impeachment process would defeat the system of
checks and balances, thus:
The history and contemporary understanding of the impeachment

provisions support our reading of the constitutional language. The parties
do not offer evidence of a single word in the history of the Constitutional
Convention or in contemporary commentary that even alludes to the
possibility of judicial review in the context of the impeachment powers. xx
x This silence is quite meaningful in light of the several explicit references
to the availability of judicial review as a check on the Legislature's power
with respect to bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and statutes. x x x
50
Nacionalista, supra note 46, at 133.
51
Estrada cases, supra notes 47 and 48, at 48.
52
506 U.S. 224 (1993).
The Framers labored over the question of where the impeachment

power should lie. x x x Indeed, Madison and the Committee of Detail
proposed that the Supreme Court should have the power to determine
impeachments. x x x Despite these proposals, the Convention ultimately
decided that the Senate would have "the sole Power to Try all
Impeachments." xx x According to Alexander Hamilton, the Senate was
the "most fit depositary of this important trust" because its members are
representatives of the people. x x x The Supreme Court was not the proper
body because the Framers "doubted whether the members of that tribunal
would, at all times, be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude as
would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task" or whether the
Court "would possess the degree x x x of credit and authority" to carry out
its judgment if it conflicted with the accusation brought by the Legislature
- the people's representative. xx x In addition, the Framers believed the
Court was too small in number: "The awful discretion, which a court of
impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the
most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community,
forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons." xx x
There are two additional reasons why the Judiciary, and the
Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in
impeachments. First, the Framers recognized that most likely there would
be two sets of proceedings for individuals who commit impeachable
offenses - the impeachment trial and a separate criminal trial. In fact, the
Constitution explicitly provides for two separate proceedings. x x x The
Framers deliberately separated the two forums to avoid raising the specter
of bias and to ensure independent judgments:
xxxx
Second, judicial review would be inconsistent with the Framers'

insistence that our system be one of checks and balances. In our
constitutional system, impeachment was designed to be the only check
on the Judicial Branch by the Legislature. On the topic of judicial
accountability, Hamilton wrote:
"The precautions for their responsibility are

comprised in the article respecting impeachments. They are
liable to be impeached for mal-conduct by the house of
representatives, and tried by the senate, and if convicted,
may be dismissed from office and disqualified for holding
any other. This is the only provision on the point, which is
consistent with the necessary independence of the judicial
character, and is the only one which we find in our own
constitution in respect to our own judges."
Judicial involvement in impeachment proceedings, even if only for

uurposes of judicial review, is counterintuitive because it would
eviscerate the "important constitutional check" placed on the Judiciary
by the Framers. x x x Nixon's argument would place final reviewing
authority with respect to impeachments in the hands of the same body
that the impeachment process is meant to regulate. 53 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
53
Id. at 233-235.
The exclusion of the judicial branch from exercising any power in the
impeachment process has a two-pronged purpose-it insulates the legislature
from judicial encroachment, and, at the same time, ensures the independence
of the individual members of the Court. Verily, to permit the Court to
exercise its judicial powers to determine the fate of its individual
members would expose each to the pressures of conformity at the risk of
removal.
In Chandler v. Judicial Council, 54 the Judicial Council of the Tenth

Circuit issued an order directing the District Judge of the Western District of
Oklahoma to desist in acting in any case then or thereafter pending before his
court. The District Judge thus sought the issuance of a writ of prohibition
and/or mandamus to stay the Judicial Council's order, alleging, among others,
that the order constitutes a usurpation of the impeachment powers vested in
Congress. The SCOTUS denied the petition due to the District Judge's failure
to exhaust his remedies.
In his dissent, Associate Justice William Douglas (Justice Douglas)

expounded on the dangers of such judicial overreach, thus:
An independent judiciary is one of this Nation's outstanding
characteristics. Once a federal judge is confirmed by the Senate and
takes his oath, he is independent of every other iudge. He commonly
works with other federal judges who are likewise sovereign. But neither one
alone nor any number banded together can act as censor and place sanctions
on him. Under the Constitution the only leverage that can be asserted
against him is impeachment, where pursuant to a resolution passed by
the House, he is tried by the Senate, sitting as a jury.xx x Our tradition
even bars political impeachments as evidenced by the highly partisan, but
unsuccessful, effort to oust Justice Samuel Chase of this Court in 1805. The
Impeachment Provision of the Constitution indeed provides for the removal
of"Officers of the United States," which includes judges, on "Impeachment
for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors."
What the Judicial Council did when it ordered petitioner to

"take no action whatsoever in any case or proceeding now or hereafter
pending" in his court was to do what only the Court of Impeachment
can do. If the business of the federal courts needs administrative oversight,
the flow of cases can be regulated. Some judges work more slowly than
others; some cases may take months while others take hours or days.
Matters of this kind may be regulated by the assignment procedure.
But there is no power under our Constitution for one group of federal
judges to censor or discipline any federal judge and no power to declare him
inefficient and strip him of his power to act as a judge.
The mood of some federal judges is opposed to this view and they
are active in attempting to make all federal judges walk in some unifomi
step. What has happened to petitioner is not a rare instance; it has happened
to other federal judges who have had perhaps a more libertarian approach
54
398 U.S. 74 (1970).
to the Bill of Rights than their brethren. The result is that the nonconformist
has suffered greatly at the hands of his fellow judges.
xxxx
These are subtle, imponderable factors which other judges should
not be allowed to manipulate to further their own concept of the public
good. x x x55 (Emphasis supplied)
The grant of the quo warranto effectively sets a judicial precedent

through which the dangers tersely identified by Justice Douglas will come to
pass. On this point, the ponencia further states that:
At this juncture, it would be apt to dissuade and allay the fear that a
ruling on the availability of quo warranto would allow the Solicitor General
to "wield a sword over our collective heads, over all our individual heads,
and on that basis, impair the integrity of the Court as a court."
Such view, while not improbable, betrays a fallacious and cynical

view of the competence and professionalism of the Solicitor General and
the members of this Court. It presupposes that members of this Court are
law offenders. It also proceeds from the premise that the Solicitor General
is the Executive's pawn in its perceived quest for a "more friendly" Court.
Verily, fear, particularly if unfounded, should not override settled
presumptions of good faith and regularity in the performance of official
duties. This Court, absent a compelling proof to the contrary, has no basis
to doubt the independence and autonomy of the Solicitor General.xx x56
If indeed all men, being inherently good, were motivated by the best
intentions, and if they only did act with utmost good faith, fidelity and
impartiality and uphold the Constitution, then there really would be nothing
to be afraid of. In that ideal utopian scenario, this Court itselfbecomes/unctus
officio.
The ponencia, however, completely misses the point. The "fear" is not
based on the theory that the members of the Court are law offenders, nor is it
based on an imputation of malice on the part of the Solicitor General. The
ponencia misplaced the statement from its proper context. For a better
understanding of the "fear" the ponencia outrightly dismisses as unfounded, I
quote the following exchang from the Ora] Arguments:
JUSTICE CAGUIOA:
Because ifwe were to follow the theory of the Solicitor General, he
would have unfettered discretion.
ATTY. POBLADOR:
Yes.
JUSTICE CAGUIOA:
To file a quo warranto suits...
55 Id. at 136-137.
56
Ponencia, p. 52.
ATTY. POBLADOR:
Yes, at any time...
JUSTICE CAGUIOA:
At any time because according to him, he is not bound by the one
(1) year prescriptive period. So, he can file at any time or anything.
ATTY. POBLADOR:
Yes.
JUSTICE CAGUIOA:
As long as he is able to relate it to the question of integrity.
ATTY. POBLADOR:
Integrity, yes.
JUSTICE CAGUIOA:
So, if one ofus had copied from his seatmate in college, and become
a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court, he can in fact, be removed or ousted
for lack of integrity because he cheated in college. Is that correct?
ATTY. POBLADOR:
Yes, but I would appeal to the discretion of the SolGen probably he
will be very selective.
JUSTICE CAGUIOA:
Only ifhe cheated in law school.
ATTY. POBLADOR:
Well, the SolGen has full discretion. He can actually say this
particular offense impeachable or not affects integrity. So, probably can
make a case against any sitting Judge or any sitting Justice which to me
highlights the danger of allowing ...
JUSTICE CAGUIOA:
And that's...
ATTY. POBLADOR:
... him to do so....
JUSTICE CAGUIOA:
And that's where I'µi corn.ing from. If I follow the theory of the
Solicitor General, then, is as if, this Coµrt were to say that quo warranto is
available then, is as if the Solicitor General whoever that Solicitor General
would be whether it's today, tomorrow, next y ar, six years from now,
he would have the ability to wield a sword over all our collective heads,
over all our individual heads. And on that basis, therefore, impair the
integrity of the Court as a Court. Do you agree?
ATTY. POBLADOR:
Yes, he can change the make-up of the Court, influence how the
Court adopts policy. He can actually control them by selectively removing
certain Justices which do not align himself, or align themselves with
government policies.. .57 (Emphasis, underscoring and italics supplied)
57 TSN, Oral Argwnents dated April 10, 2018, pp. 198-200 .

The "fear" is not founded on the "fallacious and cynical view of the
competence and professionalism of the Solicitor General and the members of
this Court."58 As shown by the underscored portion of the quoted exchange,
the "fear" is not even based on any imputation of malice or irregularity on the
part of the present Solicitor General. Rather, the "fear" is based on the
dangerous power the ponencia grants the present and future Solicitors General
without any constitutional support. With such unfettered power, the balance
of powers between the three coordinate departments unconstitutionally shifts,
and the independence and stability of the Judiciary is eroded. This is where
the danger lies.
The Constitution exacts adherence to

the principle of separation of powers
and the maintenance of the system of
checks and balances.
The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws
must conform and to which all persons must defer. 59 From this cardinal
postulate, it follows that the three branches of government must discharge
their respective functions within the limits of authority conferred by the
Constitution.60
The principle of separation of powers is borne 01,1t of the allocation of

State powers under the Constitution, and precludes one branch from unduly
encroaching upon, assuming, or interfering with powers that, under the
Constitution, are vested in another. 1
"The Constitution expressly confers on the [J]udiciary the power to

maintain inviolate what it decrees. As the guardian of the Constitution[, the
Court] cannot shirk the duty of seeing to it that the officers in each branch of
government do not go beyond their constitutionally allocated boundaries[.]"61
Conversely, the Court: is bound to exercise restraint with respect to matters
unequivocally committed to a coordinate branch and refuse to act on matters
placed beyond the scope of its judicial power.
The present action for quo warranto against the respondent

constitutes an institutional ttack on the Supreme Court, as it enlists the
Court's participatit)n in the erosion of its own independence through the
circumvention of the very document it has been tasked to uphold. To my
mind, the Court's duty to exercise restraint bas never been so glaring.
Assuming that quo warranto i,fi

available, it is time-barred.
58 Ponencia, p, 52.
59 See
generally Bengzon v. D-rilon, 284 Phil. 245,760 (1992),
60 Id.
61 Id.
The Solicitor General argues that as early as 1901, the action for quo
warranto has been available to question a person's title to an office,
attempting to extend the same to impeachable officers as, in this case, to the
Chief Justice. He also claims that the remedy remains available. Moreover, he
argues that his right to file the quo warranto is imprescriptible on the basis
alternatively of the maxim nullum tempus occurit regis and Article 1108 of
the Civil Code.
Both premises are egregiously wrong.
The provision for quo warranto found in the 1901 Code of Civil
Procedure62 provides:
SEC. 197. Usurpation of an office or franchise. - A civil action

may be brought in the name of the Government of the Philippine Islands:
1. Against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds

or exercises a public civil office or a franchise within the Philippine Islands,
or an office in a corporation created by the authority of the Government of
the Philippine Islands;
2. Against a public civil officer who does or suffers an act which,

by the provisions oflaw, works a forfeiture of his office;
3. Against an association of persons who act as a corporation

within the Philippine Islands, without being legally incorporated or without
lawful authority so to act.
While the provision does allow the filing of a civil action to question a
person's title to public office, the passage of the 1935, 1973 and 1987
Constitutions had amended the provisions of quo warranto to exclude
impeachable officers from its application. Indeed, it is hombook that the
Constitution is read into every law. It thus cannot be said that the provisions
of quo warranto from the 1901 and 1940 Codes of Civil Procedure and the
subsequent Rules of Court have efficacy independent of or contrary to the
provisions of the Constitution. As provisions on quo warranto had to be
harmonized and deemed modified by other existing laws,63 all the more must
it bow to the express constitutional directive of Article XI, Section 2.
Under this novel interpretation of the availability of quo warranto

under Sections 197 to 216 of the 1901 Code of Civil Procedure as substantially
retained in Rule 66 of the present Rules of Civil Procedure, any Solicitor
General can assail the title of an impeachable officer, even the President, via
quo warranto, bypassing the constitutional directive that removal of these
officers is possible only by the process of impeachment.
62
Act No. 190, AN ACT PROVIDING A CODE OF PROCEDURE IN CIVIL ACTIONS AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, August 7, 1901.
63
See Navarro v. Gimenez, 10 Phil. 226 (1908).
The error in this interpretation is readily apparent: the Constitution

committed to the Legislature the check in the form of removal only through
impeachment of the appointive impeachable officers of the Judiciary, the
Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman.64 For elective impeachable
officers, the President and the Vice President, the Constitution allowed other
modes that may lead to removal in the form of election protest and quo
warranto as allowed by the rules promulgated by the Court en bane sitting as
the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. 65 Under the ponencia 's theory, the
Executive - nay, a mere agency of the Executive, can cause the removal of
an appointive impeachable officer.
Aggravating the stance of the Solicitor General that quo warranto is

available against appointive impeachable officers, he also claims that the
right to file the action is imprescriptible on the basis of Article 1108 of the
Civil Code and the maxim of nullum tempus occurrit regi. The ponencia
agrees, in tum citing the cases of Agcaoili v, Suguitan66 (Agcaoili), citing
People ex rel. Moloney v. Pullman's Palace Car Co.,67 State of Rhode Island
v. Pawtuxet Turnpike Company,68 and People v. Bailey69 (Bailey).70 At the
risk of belaboring the point, these are wrong bases to re]y on.
The reliance on Agcaoili does not entirely displace the running of

prescription in quo warranto proceedings. In Tumulak v. Egay, 71 on the
question of prescription, the Court held:
And there is good justification for the limitation period: it is not
proper that the title to public office should be subjected to continued
uncertainty, and the people's interest requires that such right should be
determined as speedily as practicable.
Remembering that the period fixed may not be procedural in nature,

it is quite possible that some persons will question the validity of the "rule
of court" on the point. However, it should be obvious that if we admit the
inefficacy of the particular rule of court hereinbefore transcribed, the
previous statute on the subject (Act 190, section 216) -- equally providing
for a one-,year term -- would automatically come into effect, and we return
to where we started: one year has passed.
It is also suggested that according to Agcaoili vs. Suguitan, the one

year period does not refer to. public officers, but to corporations. In that
litigation, it is true that the court, on this particular point, decided by a bare
majority, the case for the petition r on two grounds, namely, (a) the one
year period applies only tc actions against corporations and not to actions
against public officers and (b) even if it applied to officers, the period had
64
1987 CONSTITUTION, Art. XI, Sec. 2.
65 Id., Art. VII, Sec. 4.
66
48 Phil. 676 (1926).
67
l 75 Ill. 125; 64 LR.A. 366.
68
Supra note 13.
69
Supra note 13.
10
71
82 Phil. 828 (1949).
not lapsed in view of the particular circumstances. However, upon a

reconsideration this Court "modified" the decision "heretofore
announced" by limiting it to the second ground.
And thereafter - this is conclusive - this Court, with the

concurrence of justices who had signed the original Agcaoili decision,
expressly applied the one-year period in a quo warranto contest between
two justices of the peace.72
As well, while the doctrine of nullum tempus occurrit regi ("time does
not run against the King") 73 exempts the State from the effects of time
limitations.placed on private litigants,74 such exemption is far from absolute.
As observed by the United States Supreme Court, limitations (on the
applicability of nu/lum tempus) derive their authority from statutes.75 This is
so because the contemporary notion of nullum tempus is grounded not on
notions of royal privilege, but on considerations of public policy. 76
Consequently, statutes of limitation do not operate against the State only in
the absence of an express provision on a period within which the State may,
or should, bring an action.77
Further, the ponencia insists that prescription does not lie in the present
case as deduced from the very purpose of an action for quo warranto, relying
on People v. City of Whittier78 (Whittier) and Bailey.79 Whittier,80 however,
concerned the validity of an attempted annexation of a certain territory in the
City of Whittier in the Los Angeles County. On the other hand, while the
California Court of Appeals in Bailey81 indeed held that the attorney general
may file the infoflllation (in the nature of quo warranto) on behalf of the
people at any tim.e, cllld that lapse of time constitut s no bar to the proceeding,
the ruling itself recognizes that [nullum tempus] would only operate in
favor of the State "in the absence of any statutory period of limitation". 82
This same recognition of the import of High as authority for the passage in
Bailey operates with its use in the case of State of Rhode Island v. Pawtuxtet
Turnpike Company.83
In this regard, even if the discussions on prescription of the cases cited

by the ponencia are applicable, these are· not inconsistent with my conclusion
that the quo warranto is time-barred. The authority relied upon by those cases,
High on Extraordinary Remedies, explicitly states:
72
Id. at 830-831.
73
Black's Law Dictionary I096 (7th ed. 1999).
14
United States v. Hoar, 26 F Cas. 329,330 (C.C.D. Mass. 1821); see also Mack, Joseph, Nu//um Tempus:
Governmental Immunity to Statutes of Limitation, Laches, and Statutes of Repose, p. 185.
15
United States v. Thompson, 98 U.S. 486 (1878).
16
Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 04 U.S. 126, 132, 58 S. Ct. 785, 788, 82 L. Ed. 1224 (1937)
11
State v. Cape Giraardeau & Jackson Gravel Road Co., 207 Mo. 85, 105 S. W. 761 (1907).
78
People v. City of Whitiier (1933) 133 Cal. App. 316, 324; 25 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 223 (1955).
79
Supra note 13.
80
Supra note 78.
81
Supra note 13.
82
Id. at 584, citing High on Exrraordinat.J' Legal Remedies . sec. 621.
83
Supra note 13.
§621. The information in the nature of a quo warranto being in effect a civil
remedy, although criminal in form, it is held that a statute of limitations
barring proceedings upon the prosecution of indictments or informations
under any penal law is not applicable to this form of remedy, and it is not
barred by such a statute. And in the absence of any statutory period of
limitation, it is held in this country that the attorney-general may file in the
information in behalf of the people at any time, in conformity with the
maxim nullum tempus occurrit regi. So when the purpose of the information
is to determine a matter of public right, as distinguished from a question of
private interest, as when it is brought to test the legal existence of a
municipal corporation and the right of its officers to exercise certain
corporate powers and functions, the statute of limitations does not apply.
But the state may be barred by its own Iaches and ac11uiescence from
maintaining the proceeding, as in a case where it is sought to oust the
corporation from the franchise or privilege of occupying certain public
funds, in the use of which by the corporation the state has long acquiesced.
And when a corporation, such as a railway or turnpike company, has been
permitted to exercise its corporate franchises for many year, without
objection or question upon the part of the state, such acquiescence has been
held as sufficient ground for refusing to entertain an information in quo
warranto to question the right to exercise such franchise.84
For the quo warranto imported into this jurisdiction, its earliest
iteration in 1901 itself limited the period within which it can be filed:
SECTION 216. Limitations. - Nothing herein contained shall authorize an

action against a corporation for forfeiture of charter, unless the same be
commenced within five years after the act complained of was done or
committed; nor shall an action be brought against an officer to be ousted
from his office unless within one year after the cause of such ouster, or the
right to hold the office, arose.
This one-year statute of limitation was retained under Section 11 of

Rule 66. There being an express provision of law on the period within which
to institute a quo warranto action, nullum tempus does not serve to justify the
delay in the filing of the present petition.
As for Article 1108, this is found in Book III of the Civil Code entitled
Modes of Acquiring Ownership. The provision reads:
ART. 1108. Prescription, both acquisitive and extinctive, runs

against:
(1) Minors and other inr apacitated persons who have parents,
guardians or other legal representatives;
(2) Absentees who have administrators, either appointed by them

before their disappearance, or appointed by the courts;
(3) Persons living abroad, who have managers or administrators;
(4) Juridical persons, except the State and its subdivisions.

84
High, on Extraordinary Remedies, p. 57'7.
Persons who are disqualified from administering their property have

a right to claim damages from their legal representatives whose negligence
has been the cause of prescription.
The very· placement of Article 1108 in Book III of the Civil Code
already signals the extent of the applicability of the provision. Extant
jurisprudence fails to yield any suppmt to use Article 1108 outside of cases
seeking recovery of ownership of State property.85 Hence, to apply Article
1108 to the instant case is an unwarranted stre ch. Most importantly, the use
of Articl 1108 as basis to say that the right to file an action for quo warranto
is imprescriptible conveniently disregards Article 1115 of the same Code
which provides:
ART. 1115. The provisions of the present Title are understood to be

without prejudice to what in this Code or in special laws is established with
respect to specific cases of prescription.
For quo warranto, its earliest iteration in the law itself limited the
period within which it can be filed under Section 216 earlier cited. This one
year statute of limitation was retained under Section 11 of Rule 66:
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 (1) 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 offic.e. in question.
Therefore, even on the basis of the foreign jurisprudence cited in the

ponencia, there is a recognition of prescription running against the State in
informations in quo warranto. With more reason in this case, when Article
1115 of the Civil Code and Section 11, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court
recognize a specific case of prescription for actions of quo warranto, and
when Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution signals the non-availability of
the remedy.
The one-year period within which quo warranto may be filed

commences from "the cause of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to
hold such office or position, arose;"86 the relevant reckoning period is from
the cause of the ouster. ·
Following the theory of the petitioner as rationalized by the ponencia,

the cause(s) of the ouster of the respondent CJ elevated to the level of lack of
85
The case of Republic v. CA (253 Phil. 698 [1989]), used by the ponencia to support the claim that there
can be no defense on the grow1d of !aches or prescription as against the government deals with
cancellation of free patent.
86
RULES OF COURT, Rule 66, Sec. 11.
the constitutional requirement of integrity consist of (1) her alleged failure to

file her SALNs during her employment with the UP College of Law, and (2)
her failure to submit all SALNs to the JBC when she applied for the position
of Chief Justice in 2012. Still following the "upon discovery" theory,
however, it should be emphasized that the JBC, the Office of the Ombudsman,
and the University of the Philippines under the Executive department would
have already been aware, or at the very least, put on notice, of the said failure
to file and the subsequent failure to submit to the JBC at the time she
submitted her application for the position of Chief Justice. Even to generously
apply Section 11 of Rule 66 to consider the reckoning point of the one-year
period to be from the time the respondent "usurp[ed], intrude[d] into, or
unlawfully h[eld] or execise[d]"87 the office of the Chief Justice, it would still
lead to the same conclusion that the one-year period to file the quo warranto
commenced from the time the Chief Justice was appointed and took her oath.88
Both causes cannot be said to have only been discovered during the
hearings before the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives in
order to justify the belated filing of the quo warranto action.
Regrettably, the Decision agrees with the petitioner's position, relying

upon the use of the word "must" in Section 289 of Rule 66.
I disagree. The exercise of the Solicitor General's discretion to file an

action for quo warranto when he "must" under Section 2 is available only as
long as the right of action still exists. Section 11 of Rule 66 is clear that there
is no authority to file an action beyond one (1) year after the cause of such
ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office, arose. Thus, even if
quo warranto is available, the Solicitor General's right of action prescribed
one year after the appointment of the Chief Justice in 2012.
To extend the pernicious implications of this interpretation, the quo

warranto may now be used by the Executive, or by the Solicitor General, at
his own discretion, to (1) force the removal of impeachable appointive officer
appointed d1,1ring previous adrµinistrations so that the sitting Executive can
appoint a new person in his or her place;. or (2) preempt or countermand the
decision of the Legislature in an impeachment proceeding. This is clearly not
in consonance with the constitutio • l desigq,_J simply cannot believe how
87
Id., Sec. l(a).
88
See Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President, 760 Phil. 410,438 (?,015) where the Court stated: "Based
on prevailing jurisprudence, appointment to a government post is a process that takes several steps to
complete. Any valid appointment, inciuding one made under the exception provided in Section 15,
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, must com;ist of the President signing an appointee's appointment
paper to a vacant office, the official transmittal of the appointment paper (preferably through the MRO),
receipt of the appointment papt!r oy the appointee, and acceptance of the appointment by the appointee
evidenced by his or her cath of office or hi:, or her assumption to office."
89
SEC. 2. When Solicitor General or public prosecutor rnust commence action. -- The Solicitor General or
a public prosecutor, when directed by the president of ihe Philippines, or when upon complaint or
otherwise he has good reason to believe thnt any case specified in the preceding section can be
established by proof, must commence such action.
the Court can accept this interpretation as being consistent with the
Constitution.
The submission of the SALN to the JBC

is not a constitutional requirement for
the position of the Chief Justice.
Articl VIII, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution provides for the

qualifications for members of the Judiciary, particularly of the Supreme
Court. The said section states:
Section 7. (1) No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme

Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty years of
age, and must have been for fifteen years or more a judge of a lower court
or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
(2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of

lower courts, but no person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a
citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar.
(3) A MeI_I1ber of the Judiciary must be a person of proven

competence, integrity, probity, and independence.
These qualifications are absolutely exclusive, and no one can add to or

lessen these qualifications. In. Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs
Board, 90 where the constitutionality of a law requiring all candidates for
public office, both in the national or local government, to undergo a
mandatory drug test91 was assailed, the Court held that the law and the
subsequent issuances implementing the same were invalid for adding another
layer of qualification to what the 1987 Constitution requires for membership
in the Senate. Thus:
Pimentel's contention is well-taken. Accordingly, Sec. 36(g) of RA

9165 should be, as it is hereby declared as, unconstitutional. It is basic that
if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that
issuance is null and void and has no effect. The Constitution is the basic law
to which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with
the Constitution. In the discharge of their defined functions, the three
departments of government have no choice but to yield obedience to the
commands of the Constitution . .Whatever limits it imposes must be
observed. ·
Congress' inherent legislative powers, broad as they may be, are

subject to certain limitations. As early as 1927, in Government v.
Springer, the Court has defined, in the abstract, the limits on legislative
power in the following wise:
90
591 Phil. 393 (2008).
91
Section 36(g) of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehcn ive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Someone has said that the powers of the legislative

department of the Government, like the boundaries of the
ocean, are unlimited. In constitutional governments,
however, as well as governments acting under delegated
authority, the powers of each of the departments xx x are
limited and confined within the four walls of
the constitution or the charter, and each department can only
exercise such powers as are necessarily implied from the
given powers. The Constitution is the shore of legislative
authority against which the waves of legislative enactment
may dash, but over which it cannot leap.
Thus, legislative power remains limited in the sense that it is subject

to substantive and constitutional limitations which circumscribe both the
exercise of the power itself and the allowable subjects of legislation. The
substantive constitutional limitations are chiefly found in the Bill of
Rights and other provisions, such as Sec. 3, Art. VI of the Constitution
prescribing the qualifications of candidates for senators.
xxxx
Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165, as sought to be implemented by the

assailed COMELEC resolution, effectively enlarges the qualification
requirements en;;-mcrated in the Sec. 3 Art. VI of the Constitution. As
couched, said Sec. 36(g) unmistakably requires a candidate for senator to
be certified illegal-drug clean, obviously as a pre-condition to the validity
of a certificate of candidacy for senator or, with like effect, a condition sine
qua non to be voted upon and, if proper, be proclaimed as senator-elect. The
COMELEC resolution completes the chain with the proviso that "[n]o
person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his office
until he has undergone mandatory drug test". Viewed, therefore, in its
proper context, Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and the implementing
COMELEC Resolution add another qualification layer to what
the 1987 Constitution, at the minimum, requires for membership in the
Senate. Whether or not the drug-free bar set up under the challenged
provision is to be hurdled before or after election is really of no moment, as
getting elected would be of little value if one cannot assume office for non
compliance with the drug-testing requirement.
xxxx
It ought to be made abundantly clear, however, that the

unconstitutionality of Sec, 36(g) ofRA 9165 is rooted on its having
infringed the constitutional provision defining the qualification or eligibility
requirements for one aspiring to rnn for and serve as senator.92 (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied)
The case held that the requirements set by the Constitution are absolute,
and that no one, not even the Legislature which possesses plenary powers, can
add to the same. By necessary implication, therefore, not even this Court,
through the decisions it promulgates, can add to these qualifications.
Thus, the submission of SALNs to the JBC cannot be declared by this Court
as a pre-requisite to a valid appointment of a Supreme Court Justice.
92
Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, supra note 90, at 405-408.
Unfortunately, this is what the ponencia does despite the exclusivity of these
requirements.
For a valid appointment as a Justice of the Supreme Court, the

Constitution only requires the applicant to possess the following
qualifications: (1) natural-born citizenship; (2) at least forty years old; (3) at
least fifteen (15) years of experience in the practice of law; and (4) proven
competence, integrity, probity, and independence. Of these four requirements,
the first three are easily verifiable for they can be proved without difficulty
through documentary evidence, such as a certificate of live birth, and the
certificate of admission to the Bar.
On the other hand, the requirement of having "proven competence,

integrity, probity, and independence" is not easily quantifiable or measurable.
Recognizing this, the Constitution precisely created a separate body to
determine what possession of these characteristics entails, and who among
several aspirants to a judicial post possesses the same, This Constitutional
body tasked to define and ascertain the possession of these characteristics is
the JBC.
The creation of the JBC was prompted by the clamor to rid the process
of appointments to the Judiciary from political pressure and partisan
activities.93 Seeing the need to create a separate, competent, and independent
body to recommend nominees to the President, the members of the
Constitutional Commission conceived of a body representative of all the
stakeholders in the judicial appointment process and called it the Judicial and
Bar Council.94 Sections 8 and 9, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides
that:
Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under

the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex
officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the
Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a
professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a
representative of the private sector.
(2) The regular Members of the Council shall be appointed by the

President for a term of four years with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments. Of the Members first appointed, the representative of the
Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of law for three years,
the retired Justice for two years, and the representative of the private sector
for one year.
(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex

officio of the Council and shall keep a record of its proceedings.
93
Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council, 691 Phil. 173, 188 (2012).
94
Id. at 188.
(4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive such

emoluments as may be determined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court shall provide in its annual budget the appropriations for the Council.
(5) The Council shall have the principal function ofrecommending

appointees to the Judiciary. It may exercise such other functions and duties
as the Supreme Court may assign to it.
Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges oflower

courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three
nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such
appointments need no confirmation.
While the framers of our Constitution intended for the JBC to be an

innovative solution in response to the public clamor to eliminate politics in
the appointment of members of the Judiciary, it was also envisioned to be a
body that ensures judicial inde_pendence. To reach that goal, they adopted
a holistic approach and hoped that, in creating the JBC, the private sector and
the three branches of government would have an active role and equal voice
in the selection of the members of the Judiciary.95 The JBC is, in fact, the
central body which ensures the independence of the entire Judiciary by
fulfilling its Constitutional role in the whole process of appointments in
judicial posts. Together with the safeguards established by the 1987
Constitution on fiscal autonomy96 and the prohibition on the reorganization of
the Judiciary when the same undermines the security of tenure of its
members, 97 the JBC's role of screening applicants and recommending
prospective members of the Judiciary is actually a vital part in protecting
judicial independence as it ensures that the persons appointed to judicial posts
are persons of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence. The
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission illumine this:
MR. COLAYCO. The decision of the Committee in creating the

Judicial and Bar Council was finally to establish the independence of
the Judiciary. We all talk about the independence of the three departments
of our government and everybody knows, including the interpellator, that
the Judiciary is not independent. It is the President who chooses, names and
appoints the judges and who is the President? He is a politician. Granted
that most ofus know that our present President is somebody above politics,
a lot of rumors have been going around that politics has somehow managed
to get into the present reorganization of the Judiciary. This is inescapable
because the President owes political favors. They are not easy to refuse or
to fail to acknowledge on the part of the President-elect.
xxxx
So, we felt that the creation of this Council would ensure more the
appointment of judges and justices who will be chosen for their confidence
and their moral qualifications, rather than to favor or to give something in
return for their help in electing the President.
95
Id. at 207.
96
1987 CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 3.
97
Id., Art. VIII, Sec. 2.
MR. ROMULO. Mr. Presiding Officer, in approaching this question

of the independence of the Judiciary, which I do not think anyone will
dispute is a necessary goal, the Committee has used a holistic approach -
as if it were a four-legged stool. One of the essential legs is the appointment
of competent men, honest and so on. Another is, of course, the security of
tenure. The third is fiscal independence of the Supreme Court. And if any
of the legs of the stool is missing, then the stool cannot stand.
Our experience has been, even with the Commission on

Appointments, that politics does get into the picture. We have tried to
compromise in arriving at a unique system for us by making the
Council a composition of representatives of the three branches of the
government plus a wide spectrum of the private sector, and at the same
time, without demeaning the power of the President to appoint because
she or he inputs the considerations through the Minister of Justice; and
the legislature, on the other hand, is able to express its considerations
through the representatives of Congress. So we have what we believe is
a good compromise. The Bar, equally for the first time, will be
represented and has a definite say on appointments; and the private
sector, as well as the law schools, is given a representative. As we will
notice, the private sector representative need not be a lawyer. So, as I say,
it is a holistic approach.
Finally, the problem of filling a vacancy in the Supreme Court

within the three-month limit which we have all accepted, and the fact that
the legislature may be in recess, is solved by this provision. I think we have
to try something different, something radical because the past has not
worked. And insofar as the Committee is concerned, we can have any
form of government we like and we are safe, provided we have an
independent and competeot Judiciary. The English experience certainly
proves this. And if we are trying to bolster the independence of the
Supreme Court, it is because in the end it is the Judiciary that will
protect all of us. We are not trying to create an independent republic out of
the Judiciary, only an autonomous region.98 (Emphasis supplied)
The symbiotic relationship between the JBC and the Court is

highlighted by the fact that, as the ponencia pointed out, the Court exercises
supervisory authority over the JBC.99 However, contrary to the ponencia's
pronouncement, the Constitution did not intend the JBC to be an office
"subordinate" to the Supreme Court. Instead, the JBC was intended to be
a body that 1s independent from executive, legislative, and even judicial
influence.
Supervision is a limited power, as defined in Book IV, Chapter 7,

Section 38(2) of Executive Order No. 292, _otherwise known as The
Administrative Code of the Philippines:
Sec. 38. Definition of Administrative Relationship. - Unless

otherwise expressly stated in the Code or in other laws defining the special
relationships of particular agencies, administrative relationships shall be
categorized and defined as follows:
98
I RECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION: PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES, pp. 487.488 (1986).
99
1987 CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 8(1).
xxxx
(2) Administrative Supervision. - (a) Administrative supervision

which shall govern the administrative relationship between a department or
its equivalent and regulatory agencies or other agencies as may be provided
by law, shall be limited to the authority of the department or its equivalent
to generally oversee the operations of such agencies and to insure that they
are managed effectively, efficiently and economically but without
interference with day-to-day activities; or require the submission of reports
and cause the conduct of management audit, performance evaluation and
inspection to determine compliance with policies, standards and guidelines
of the department; to take such action as may be necessary for the proper
performance of official functions, including rectification of violations,
abuses and other forms of maladministration; and to review and pass upon
budget proposals of such agencies but may not increase or add to them;
(b) Such authority shall not, however, extend to: (1)

appointments and other personnel actions in accordance with the
decentralization of personnel functions under the Code, except when appeal
is made from an action of the appointing authority, in which case the appeal
shall be initially sent to the department or its equivalent, subject to appeal
in accordance with law; (2) contracts entered into by the agency in the
pursuit of its objectives, the review of which and other procedures related
thereto shall be governed by appropriate laws, rules and regulations; and (3)
the power to review, reverse, revise, or modify the decisions of
regulatory agencies in the exercise of their regulatory or quasi-judicial
functions; and
(c) Unless a different meaning is explicitly provided in the specific

law governing the relationship of particular agencies, the word
"supervision" shall encompass administrative supervision as defined in this
paragraph. (Emphasis supplied)
In Aguinaldo v. Aquino Ill 100 the Court differentiated "supervision"

and "control", thus:
Supervisory power, when contrasted with control, is the power of

mere oversight over an inferior body; it does not include any restraining
authority over such body. Officers in control lay down the rules in the doing
of an act. If they are not followed, it is discretionary on his part to order the
act undone or redone by his subordinate or he may even decide to do it
himself. Supervision does not cover such authority. Supervising officers
merely sees to it that the rules are followed, but he himself does not lay down
such rules, nor does he have the discretion to modify or replace them. If
the rules are not observed, he may order the work done or redone to conform
to the prescribed rules. He cannot prescribe his own manner for the doing of
the act. xx x101 (Emphasis supplied)
In particular reference to the Supreme Court's supervisory authority

over the JBC, the Supreme Court can only inquire and thereafter order that
the JBC follow its own rules, but it does not have the jurisdiction to revise
100
G.R. No. 224302, November 29, 2016, 811 SCRA 304.
101
Id. at 370-371.
the rules promulgated by JBC, much less supplant the latter's exercise of
discretion with its own, as what the ponencia now does. In Jardeleza v.
Sereno,102 (Jardeleza) the Court held that:
As a meaningful guidepost, jurisprudence provides the definition and

scope of supervision. It is the power of oversight, or the authority to see that
subordinate officers perform their duties. It ensures that the laws and the rules
governing the conduct of a government entity are observed and complied
with. Supervising officials see to it that rules are followed, but they
themselves do not lay down such rules, nor do they have the discretion to
modify or replace them. If the rules are not observed, they may order the work
done or redone, but only to conform to such rules. They may not prescribe
their own manner of execution of the act. They have no discretion on this
matter except to see to it that the rules are followed. 103 (Emphasis
supplied)
In the same case, the Court was unequivocal that "[c]onsidering that the
Court's power over the JBC is merely supervisory, the revisions in its internal
rules need not be submitted to the Court for approval."104 further, in Villanueva
v. Judicial and Bar Council,105 (Villanueva) the Court held that:
Following this definition, the supervisory authority of the Court

over the JDC is to see to it that the JBC complies with its own rules and
procedures. Thus, when the policies of the JBC are being attacked, then the
Court, through its supervisory a,uthority over the JBC, has the duty to
inquire about the matter and ensure that the JBC complies with its own
rules.
xxxx
As the constitutional body granted with the power of searching for,
screening, and selecting applicants relative to recommending appointees to
the Judiciary, the JBC has the authority to determine bow best to
perform such constitutional mandate. Pursuant to this authority, the JBC
issues various policies setting forth the guidelines to be observed in the
evaluation of applicants, and formulates rules and guidelines in order to
ensure that the rules are updated to respond to existing circumstances. Its
discretion is freed from legislative, executive or h!,dicial intervention to
ensure that the JDC is shielded from any outside pressure and
improper influence.xx x106 (Emphasis supplied)
The independence of JBC from the political departments was further

underscored by the fact that in Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council,107 the
Court ruled as unconstitutionai the practice of having two members of the
Legislature in the JBC membership. In the said case, the Court ruled that "to
allow the Legislature to have more quantitative influence in the JBC by having
102
749 Phil. 460 (2014).
103
Id. at 489-490.
104
Jardeleza v. Sereno, G.R. No. 213181, Ja.'1uary 21, 2015, p. 5 (Unsigned Resolution).
105
757 Phil. 534 (2015).
106 Id. at 545, 556.
107
Supra note 93.
more than one voice speak, whether with one full vote or one-half (1/2) a vote
each, would, as one former congressman and member of the JBC put it,
'negate the principle of equality among the three branches of government
which is enshrined in the Constitution." '108
If the Court was conservative enough not to let one more legislator
disrupt the balance of power within the JBC, with more reason then that the
Court should not allow the same balance of power to be disturbed by
extending its supervisory authority beyond what was intended by the
Constitution. The Court cannot say in one case that one branch of the
government cannot be more powerful than the other two in the JBC, and then
hold that the JBC is completely subordinate to it in this, another case.
The fact that the Constitution mandated the JBC to do "such other
functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it"109 did not make
the JBC subordinate to this Court. The Constitution, for instance, mandated
the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to "perform such other duties and
functions as may be provided by lmv,"110 but the Constitution did not intend
the CHR to be in any way subordinate to the Legislature.
This is not to say that the JBC possesses absolute autonomy as to place
its actions beyond the reach of the Court Despite JBC independence as a body
created by the Constitution, the Court can still review its exercise of discretion
- not by virtue of its supervisory authority over the JBC, but by the power
granted to the Court by the Constitution to determine whether or not there was
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. 111
Differently put, when what is at issue is the JBC's determination of an

applicant's fitness, which requires the JBC to do an act exclusively vested in
it by the Constitution - as opposed to other matters such as the validity of its
rules or its compliance with its own rules - then it is required that an
allegation be made to the effect that the JBC had committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Without such
allegation, the Court cannot review the JBC's exercise of discretion as it is not
covered by the Court's supervisory authority over the said body.
As well, the review of the JBC's exercise of discretion must be assailed

prior to the appointment. The reason is obvious: the subsequent appointment
of an applicant to the position vests upon the appointee the status of an
impeachable officer who can be removed only by impeachment under Article
XI, Section 2.
108
Id. at 207; emphasis and w1derscori11g supplied.
109
110
Id., Art. XIU, Sec. 18(1 1).
111
Id., Art. VIII, Sec. 1.
Apparently cognizant of this fact, the Republic, through the OSG, never
claimed that the JBC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction. Thus, thv ponencia is utterly confused when it
invoked both (I) the Court's supervisory authority over the JBC and (2) its
Constitutional power of judicial review based on allegations of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, to justify the Court's
assumption of jurisdiction over this case. To repeat, the assailed actions of the
JBC cannot be reviewed by this Court wearing its hat of supervision, and
neither can it review the same by virtue of its Constitutional power of judicial
review as there was absolutely no claim or allegation that the JBC had gravely
abused its discretion. More important, following the fundamental precepts of
due process and fair play, the Court cannot make a pronouncement on JBC's
discretion without making the said body a party in this case.
Apart from its role in protecting judicial independence and ensuring

that the appointments to the Judiciary are insulated from politics, it is likewise
the JBC's task to ensure that the appointees possess the qualifications
prescribed by the Constitution. This is clear in the deliberations of the Framers
of the Constitution:
MR. CONCEPCION. The Judicial and Bar Council is no doubt an

innovation. But it is an innovation made in response to the public clamor in
favor of eliminating politics in the appointment of judges.
At present, there will be bout 2,200 positions of judges, excluding

those of the Supreme Court, to be filled. We feel that neither the President
alone nor the Commission on Appointments would have the time and the
means necessary to study the background of every one of the candidates for
appointment to the various courts in the Philippines, specially considering
that we have accepted this morning the amendment to the effect that
no person slu1ll be qualified unless he has a proven high sense of
morality and probity. These are matters that require time, which we are
sure the President does not have except, probably, he would have to endorse
the matter to the National Bureau of Investigation or to some intelligence
agency of the government. And we do not think that these agencies are
qualified to pass upon qufstions of 1t1orality, integrity and competence
of lawyers. 112 (Emphasis supplied)
On integrity, and the JBC's power to

determine evidel'lce thereof
To reiterate, no person shall be appointed as member of the Supreme

Court unless (a) he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines; (b) is at least
forty years of age; and (c) must have been for fifteen years or more a judge of
a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.113 He must
also be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.
The requirement of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence
was proposed by Commissioner Jose N. Nolledo to strengthen the moral fiber
112
I RECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION: PROCEEDfNGS AND DEBATES, p. 487 (1986).
113
of the judiciary. The proposal was accepted; the pertinent Records of the
Constitutional Commission reads:
MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
My amendment is to add a new subsection (3) on Section 4 which

reads: A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY MUST BE A PERSON OF
PROVEN COMPETENCE, INTEGRITY, PROBITY, AND
INDEPENDENCE.
Before the Committee decides on whether or not to

accept the amendment, I would like to explain it first.
Mr. Presiding Officer, this is a moral provision lifted with

modifications from the "Canons of Judicial Ethics." The reputation of our
justices and judges has been unsavory. I hate to say this, but it seems that it
has become the general rule that the members of the Judiciary are corrupt
and the few honest ones are the exceptions. We hear of justices and judges
who would issue injunctive relief to the highest bidder and would decide
cases based on hundreds of thousands, and even millions, mercenary
reasons.
The members of the deposed Supreme Court, with a few exceptions,

catered to the political likings and personal convenience of Mr. Marcos by
despicably surrendering their judicial independence. Why should we resist
incorporating worthy moral principles in our fundamental law? Why should
we canalize our conservative thoughts within t,he narrow confines of pure
legalism?
I plead to the members of the Committee and to my colleagues in

this Constitutional Commission to support my amendment in order to
strengthen the moral fiber of our Judiciary. Let not our Constitution be
merely a legal or political document. Let it be a moral document as well.
Thank you.
xxxx
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon). The amendment has

been accepted by the Committee.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the

amendment is approved.114
As earlier intimated, the first three constitutional requirements are

objective qualifications and are easily verifiable. However, the requirement of
proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence are not. Section
8(5), Article VIII states that the JBC shall have the principal function of
recommending appointees to the Judiciary. Thus, I agree with the respondent
that the question of whether an applicant for the position of the Chief Justice
is a person of integrity is a question constitutionally committed to the JBC. In
fact, the Records of the Constitutional Commission shows that the framers of
the Constitution intended that these moral qualifications will be considered as
114 I RECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION: PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES,
pp. 484-485 (1986).
guidelines by the JBC when they determine the qualification of prospective

appointees.
MR. NOLLEDO. If the Commissioner does not mind, I presented

Resolution No. 188, which is not mentioned in the committee report,
entitled:
RESOLUTION TO ENSHRINE IN THE ARTICLE ON

THE JUDICIARY OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION,
ETHICAL RULES ON QUALIFICATIONS AND
CONDUCT OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY.
It is unfortunate that the reputation; of our judges is not so good and

so, I do not know what is the sense of the Committee. I would like to tell the
members in advance that I intend to present this as an amendment for
consideration - that in connection with Section 4, perhaps we can add a
subsection there which may run like this: THAT NO ONE SHALL BE
APPOINTED AS MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY UNLESS HE IS A
PERSON OF PROVEN COMPETENCE, INTEGRITY, PROBITY AND
INDEPENDENCE and THAT THE ACTUATIONS OF A MEMBER OF
THE JUDICIARY IN OR OUTSIDE THE COURT MUST BE BEYOND
REPROACH.
This is similar to a provision in "Canons of Judicial Ethics," but

history states that those provisions are more honored in breach than in
observance.
MR. CONCEPCION. That is right.
MR. NOLLEDO. So, when we discipline a member of the judiciary,

perhaps it will strengthen the intention if we can quote a constitutional
mandate that he has not acteq beyond reproach as enjoined
by the Constitution.
MR. CONCEPCION . The Committee is well aware of the fact that

our task is to make good laws. But it is also fully aware of the fact that no
matter how good the laws are, if the persons chosen to enforce those laws
are not the right persons, they may be doing a disservice to the country. In
connection with the judges, that is the reason for the Judicial and Bar
Council.
MR. NOLLEDO. When we set forth these moral qualifications, they

may be considered guidelines by the Judicial and Bar Council when they
determine the qualifications of prospective appointees.
MR. CONCEPCION: But that is understood: honesty, competence,

etc. That is the only purpose of the Judicial and Bar Council.115
As the Constitutional body tasked to ensure that persons appointed to

the Judiciary are persons of "proven competence, integrity, probity, and
independence,"116 the JBC is given sufficient, if not wide, discretion to
115
Id, at 440 44 l.
116
define the said terms and then set the standards it would use to determine
which of the applicants truly possesses the said qualities. In the case of
Villanueva,117 the issue was whether it was valid for the JBC to require five
years of experience for judges of first-level courts before they could seek
promotion to the Regional Trial Courts. The Court upheld the explanation
of the JBC when it said:
xx x While the 1987 Constitution has provided the qualifications of

members of the judiciary, this does not preclude the JBC from having its
own set of rules and procedures and providing policies to effectively ensure
its mandate.
The functions of searching, screening, and selecting are necessary

and incidental to the JBC's principal function of choosing and
recommending nominees for vacancies in the judiciary for appointment by
the President. However, the Constitution did not lay down in precise
terms the process that the JBC shall follow in determining applicants'
qualifications. In carrying out its main function, the JBC has the
authority to set the standards/criteria in choosing its nominees for
every vacancy in the judiciary, subjec.t only to the minimum
qualifications required by the Constitution and Jaw for every position.
The search for these long held qualities necessarily requires a degree of
flexibility in order to determine who is most fit among the applicants. x
x x118 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The Court further expounded that "[f]ormulating policies which

streamline the selection process falls squarely under the purview of the JBC.
No other constitutional body is bestowed with the mandate and
competency to set criteria for applicants that refer to the more general
categories of probity, integrity and independence."119 In explaining that the
JBC was justified in imposing the five-year experience requirement for judges
of first-level courts, the Court held that:
That is the situation here. In issuing the assailed policy, the JBC
merely exercised its discretion in accordance with the constitutional
requirement and its rules that a member of the Judiciary must be of
proven competence, integrity, probity and independence. "To ensure the
fulfillment of these standards in every member of the Judiciary, the JBC has
been tasked to screen aspiring judges and justices, among others, making
certain that the nominees submitted to the President are all qualified and
suitably best for appointment. In this way, the appointing process itself is
shielded from the possibility of extending judicial appointment to the
undeserving and mediocre and, more importantly, to the ineligible or
disqualified."120 (Emphasis supplied)
Following the Court's pronouncement in Villanueva, where it upheld

the JBC's exclusive power to define the requirement of "competence," the
same body therefore has the sole and exclusive power to define the other
117
Supra note 105.
118
Id. at 548 549.
119
Id. at 551; emphasis supplied.
120 Id. at 550.
qualifications such as "integrity." To be clear, not even the Court's power

of supervision can diminish the JBC's jurisdiction to define "integrity"
and determine who possesses the same. ,
It is a very grave error, therefore, for the ponencia to rule that the
"qualifications under the Constitution cannot be waived or bargained away by
the JBC" - when the JBC bargained away nothing. The ponencia itself
recognized that the Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council121 or JBC-009 was
issued by the JBC in compliance with its Constitutional mandate. When the
JBC issued JBC-009 and determined therein what constitutes "competence,"
"integrity," "probity," and "independence," the JBC was well-within its
discretion granted by the Constitution, and neither the OSG nor the Court can
inquire as to the validity of such determination. The JBC, through JBC-009,
detennined that a person's "integrity" is best proved by certifications and
testimonials from various persons and organizations. Section 1, Rule 4 of
JBC-009 provides:
RULE4
INTEGRJTY
SECTION 1. Evidence of integrity. - The Council shall take every

possible step to verify the applicant's record of and reputation for honesty,
integrity, incorruptibility, irreproachable conduct, and fidelity to sound moral
and ethical standards. For this pu.rpose, the applicant shall submit to the
Council certifications or testimonials thereof from reputable government
officials and non-governmental organizations, and clearances from the courts,
National Bureau of Investigation, police, and from such other agencies as the
Council may require.
Again, in Jardeleza,122 the Court held:
In the perfonnance of this sacred duty, the JBC itself admits, as

stated in the ''whereas ciauses" of JBC-009, that qualifications such as
"competence, integrity, probity and independence are not easily
determinable as they are developed and nurtured through the years."
Additionally, "it is not possible or advisable to lay down iron-clad rules to
determine the fitness of those who aspire to become a Justice, Judge,
Ombudsman or Deputy Ombudsman." Given this realistic situation, there
is a need "to promote stability and uniformity in JBC 's guiding precepts and
principles." A set of uniform criteria had to be established in the
ascertainment of ''whether one meets the minimum constitutional
qualifications and possesses qualities of mind and heart expected of
him" and his office. Likewise for the sake of transparency of its
proceedings, the JBC had put these criteria in writing, now in the form of JBC-
009. True enough, guidelines have been set in the determination of
"competence," "probity and independence," "soundness of physical
and mental condition," and "integrity."
121
Judicial and Bar Council Resolution No. JBC-009, October 18, 2000.
122
Supra note 102.
As disclosed by the guidelines and lists of recognized evidence of

qualification laid down in JBC-009, "integrity" is closely related to, or if
not, approximately equated to an applicant's good reputation for honesty,
incorruptibility, irreproachable conduct, and fidelity to sound moral and
ethical standards. That is why proof of an applicant's reputation may be
shown in certifications or testimonials from rep1,1table government
officials and non-governmental organizations and clearances from the
courts, National Bureau oflnvestigation, and the police, among others.
In fact, the JBC may even condu t a discreet background check and
receive feedback from the public on the integrity, reputation and
character of the applicant, the merits of which shall be verified and
checked. As a qualification, the term is taken to refer to a virtue, such that,
"integrity is the quality of person's character."123 (Emphasis supplied)
JBC-009 did not require the submission of SALNs as proof of one's

integrity. The submission of SALNs was only required in response to the
impeachment of former Chief Justice Renato Corona. As the minutes of the
JBC reveals, as quoted by the ponencia itself, requiring aspirants to a judicial
post to submit to the JBC their SALNs was only to prevent the same thing
from happening to the next Chief Justice:
Senator Escudero moved that additional requirements be imposed by

the Council for the position of Chief Justice, namely (1) all previous SALNs
(up to December 31, 2012) for those in the government or SALN as of
December 31, 2012 for those from the private sector; and (2) waiver in favor
of the JBC of the confidentiality of local and foreign currency bank accounts
under the Bank Secrecy Law and Foreign Currency Deposits Act. The
documents shall be treated with utmost confidentiality and only for the use of
the JBC. He proposed that these additional requirements be included in the
publication of the announcement opening the said position. He explained
that the basis of his motion was the fact th t the reason why Chief Justice
Corona was removed from office was due to inaccuracies in his SALN.
The Members of the House of Representatives, in the exercise of their
wisdom, determined that non-inclusion of assets in one's SALN is an
impeachable offense. Likewise, majority of the Senate voted to convict
because of the inaccuracies in the bank accounts and statements in his SALN.
He said that the JBC would not want to recommend a person who is
susceptible to such kind of attack. He said that the JBC should impose higher
standards to aspirants for the position of Chief Justice.
Congressman Tupas concurred with Senator Escudero's motion and

suggested that the waiver should not be limited to year-end balances only.
There being no objection, the motion was APPROVED. The

Council agreed to PUBLISH the announcement opening the position of
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines together with the
additional requirements1. 24 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Hence, the requirement for aspirants to submit to the JBC their SALNs
was only JBC's reaction to the Congress' exercise of its wisdom that non
inclusion of assets in one s SALN was an impeachable offense. The JBC
123 Cd.
at 492-496.
124
Minutes of the IBC En Banc Meeting dated June 4, 2012, pp. 22-23.
itself did not make a determination that submission of SALNs is part of

determining whether a person is of proven integrity. In fact, when the
JBC Rules were revised in 2016, submission of SALNs still did not
constitute proof of a person's integrity·. Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the
JBC125 provides that: ··
RULE4
INTEGRITY AND PROBITY
SECTION 1. Evidence of Integrity and Probity. - The Council

shall take every possible step to verify the applicants' record of and
reputation for honesty, integrity, probity, incorruptibility, irreproachable
conduct, and fidelity to sound moral and ethical standards. For this
purpose, the applicants shall submit to the Council certifications thereon or
testimonials thereof from reputable government officials and non
governmental organizations, and clearances from the courts, National
Bureau of Investigation, Office of the Ombudsman, Office of the Bar
Confidant, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Philippine National Police in
their places of residence, and from such other agencies as the Council may
require. All of these must have been issued not earlier than six (6) months
from the deadline for their submission.
SEC. 2. Background Check. - The Council may order a discreet

background check on the integrity, reputation, and character of the
applicants, and receive feedback thereon from the public, which the Council
shall check, verify, or validate the merits thereof
All applicants may be subject to, or covered by, a survey or feedback

mechanism.
SEC. 3. Complaints or Oppositions. -The Council may receive

written sworn complaint or opposition relating to the qualifications or moral
fitness of applicants.
The applicants concerned shall be furnished with a

copy of the sworn complaint or opposition and shall be given five (5) days
from receipt thereof within which to file a comment thereon, if they so
desire. During the interview, the applicants concerned may be made to
comment on the complaint or opposition.
SEC. 4. Anonymous Complaints or Oppositions. - Anonymous

complaints or oppositions against applicants shall not be given due course
unless there appears probable cause sufficient to engender a belief that the
allegations may be true, which may affect the integrity of the applicants.
The Council may either direct a discreet investigation or require the
applicants concerned to comment thereon in writing or during the interview.
SEC. 5. Disqualifications. -The following are disqualified from

being nominated for appointment to any judicial post or as Ombudsman,
Deputy Ombudsman, Special Prosecutor, or Chairperson or Regular
Member of the Legal Education Board:
125
Promulgated on September 20, 2016.
1. Applicants with Criminal Cases
a. Those with pending criminal cases in the Philippines even if

they are still under preliminary investigation;
b. Those with pending criminal cases in foreign courts or tribunals;

and
c. Those who have been convicted in any criminal case;
2. Applicants with Administrative Cases
a. Those with pending administrative cases or complaints

in the Office of the Ombudsman which are either under fact
finding stage and the applicants were not issued a clearance, or
still under administrative adjudication.
b. Those with pending administrative cases or complaints before

any court, office, tribunal, any government office, agency, or
insirumentality, or before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
or any association, disciplinary committee or body when,
in the determination of the Council, the complaints are serious
or grave as to affect their fitness for nomination;
However, complaints against applicants concerning the

merits of cases or ascribing errors to their decisions or
resolutions, which are judicial in nature, shall not be a grounds
for disqualification.
c. Those who have been found guilty in an administrative case

where the penalty imposed is suspension for a period at least ten
(10) days or a fine of at least Pl0,000 unless they have been
granted judicial clemency; and
3. Applicants who have been found to have made false statements,

misrepresentations, or concealments of material information in their
personal data sheet.
To emphasize, the whole rule, even as revised, did not consider the
filing of SALNs as a measure of a person's integrity. Therefore, the ponencia
was grossly unfair, if not un;ust, to the JBC when it stated that the latter
'bargained away constitutional qualifications' when the JBC simply did not.
The JBC had rules in place to determine whether an applicant possesses the
requisite qualification of 'proven integrity' and, therefore, it cannot be said
that the JBC "bargained away" this qualification.
It is worth repeating that the JBC's discretion is freed from legislative,

executive, or even judicial intervention to ensure that the JBC is shielded from
any outside pressure and improper influence. 126 It is thus the height of
judicial tyranny for the ponencia to hold that the JBC's rules were
insufficient to measure 'integrity'. In so doing, the Court unwarrantedly
encroached on powers it unequivocally does not possess.
126 Villanueva
v. Judicial and Bar Council, supra note 105, at 556.
Further, the JBC had the right to rely on their rules existing at the time.
In the respondent's case, therefore, the JBC followed its rules when it required
her to submit the certifications or testimonials, and accordingly considered
such as proof of her integrity once she submitted the same. The respondent
cannot likewise be faulted for not submitting her complete SALNs because
the JBC itself accepted her explanation that the said SALNs were
"irretrievable." In Office of the Court of Administrator v. Floro, Jr.,127 the
Court held the judge involved could not be faulted when the JBC disregarded
the Supreme Court Clinic's finding that he failed the psychological
evaluations because the JBC was justified in disregarding the same. The Court
held:
Judge Floro did not breach any rule of procedure relative to his
application for judgeship. He went through the entire gamut of tests and
interviews and he was nominated by the JBC on the strength of his
scholastic achievements. As to having failed the psychological
examinations given by the SC Clinic, it must be pointed out that this
was disregarded by the JBC upon Judge Floro's submission of
psychiatric evaluations conducted by mental health professionals from
the private sector and which were favorable to him. Nowhere is it alleged
that Judge Floro acted less than honorably in procuring these evaluations.
The JBC in 1999 had all the discretion to refer Judge Floro to a
private clinic for a second opinion of his mental and psychological fitness.
In performing its functions, the JBC had been guided primarily by the
Constitution which prescribes that members of the Judiciary must be, in
addition to other requirements, persons of proven competence, integrity,
probity and independence. It was only on 18 October 2000 when it
promulgated JBC-009, the "Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council," that the
JBC put down in writing guidelines or criteria it had previously used in
ascertaining "if one seeking such office meets the minimum constitutional
qualifications and possesses qualities of mind and heart expected of the
Judiciary." Rule 6 thereof states:
SECTION 1. Good health. - Good physical health

and sound mental/psychological and emotional condition of
the applicant play a critical role in his capacity and capability
to perform the delicate task of administering justice. x x x
SEC. 2. Psychological/psychiatric tests. - The

applicant shall submit to psychological/psychiatric tests to
be conducted by the Supreme Court Medical Clinic or by a
psychologist and/or psychiatrist duly accredited by the
Council.
It would seem that as things stood then, the JBC could very well
rely on the evaluation of a private psychologist or psychiatrist not
accredited by the JBC. Thus, the JBC cannot be faulted for accepting
the psychological evaluations of mental health professionals not
affiliated with the Supreme Court Clinic.128 (Emphasis supplied)
127
520 Phil. 590 (2006).
128
Id. at 666-667.
The JBC, recogmzmg its task of determining who meets the

constitutional requirements to merit recommendation for appointment to the
Judiciary, has grappled with this most difficult and trying duty because the
virtues and qualities of competence, integrity, probity and independence are
not easily determinable as they are developed and nurtured through the
years.129 Thus, in its attempt to determine whether a person is of proven
integrity, the JBC, in its wisdom, laid down in JBC-009 certain guidelines
to verify the applicant's records and of reputation for honesty, integrity,
incorruptibility, irreproachable conduct and fidelity to sound moral and
ethical standards.
In Jardeleza, the Court tried to rationalize the requirement of integrity as

laid down in JBC-009, as follows:
As disclosed by the guidelines and lists of recognized evidence of

qualification laid down in JBC-009, "integrity" is closely related to, or if
not, approximately equated to a.n applicant's good reputation for
honesty, incorruptibility, irreproachable conduct, and fidelity to sound
moral and ethical standards. That is why proof of an applicant's
reputation may be shown in certifications or testimonials from reputable
government officials and non-governmental organizations and clearances
from the courts, National Bureau of Investigation, and the police, among
others. In fact, the JBC may even conduct a discreet background check and
receive feedback from the public on the integrity, reputation and character
of the applicant, the merits of which shall be verified and checked. As a
qualification, the term is taken to refer to a virtue, such that, "integrity is the
quality of person's character." 130 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied;
citations omitted)
As can be gleaned above, the requirement of submission of SALNs is

not found in Rule 4 of JBC-009. As stated earlier, the undenied fact is that the
submission to the JBC of all of the applicant's SALNs was required only in
the published Announcement dated June 5, 2012. Again, this requirement was
prompted only by the impeachment of fom1er Chief Justice Renato Corona
who was removed from office due to inaccuracies in his SALN.131
The questioned appointment of respondent occurred in 2012. If indeed

the submission of SALNs is a requirement to determine one's proven
integrity, I reiterate that Rule 4 (Integrity) of JBC-009, after almost six years,
remains the same and has not been amended to include the submission of
SALNs.
As such, the Court cannot now say that the respondent had not proven
her integrity at the time of her appointment -- in the face of the JBC's own
determination that she indeed possessed the requisite qualifications in
compliance with its m,.rn rules.
129
JBC-009, 5th WHEREAS Clause.
130
Supra note 102, at 492-496.
131
See Minutes of the JBC En Banc Meeting, supra note 125.
Also noteworthy is the fact that prior to the screening of applicants for
the Chief Justice post in 2012, the JBC had never required the submission of
all SALNs from the prospective applicants. This fact was proved during the
oral arguments as follows:
JUSTICE LEONEN:
Yes. Wc>Uld you recall that if SALNs were required for the Office
of the Chief Justice in 2010?
CHIEF JUSTICE SERENO:

I think, hindi. l think not, we had a chance to look at the publication.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
In point, in fact, it was not. In 2010 therefore, it was not required.
Would you recall when you applied for Associate Justice in 2010, whether
you were required to file your SALNs?
xxxx
CHUJ:F JUSTICE SERENO:

It was not formally required in the publication.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
Would you recall when it was first required, that SALN...
should be submitted?
CllIEF JUSTICE SERENO:

I think it was after the impeachment of Justice Corona.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
And point in fact, in 2011 when there was an opening for Chief
Justice, am I not correct?

2012?
JUSTICE LEONEN:
Yes, when there was an opening vice Chief Justice Renato Corona. ..

Yes...
JUSTICE LEONEN:
... that there was a requirement for SALN. Would you know for
Associate Justices what the requirements for SALNs are? Is it all or is it
only two (2)?

Only two (2)?
JUSTICE LEONEN:
Only two (2).

Okay. Thank you.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
In other words, the JBC has not been consistent in relation to the
requirement of SALN, is that not correct?

Yes.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
But they are consistent in trying to find out whether a person can be
predictably, one with integrity, is that not correct? Because that's a
constitutional requirement?

Yes, and in fact, there's a special rule...
JUSTICE LEONEN:
Yes.

... on integrity.
JUSTICE LEONEN:
Therefore, throughout the years there are instances where the
JBC did not even require a SALN, am I not correct?
Yes.132 (Emphasis supplied)
This was also confirmed by Justice Aurora Santiago Lagman, a former

member of the JBC, in her Comment dated March 23, 2018 in A.M. No. 17-
11-12-SC and A.Iv1. No. 17-11-17-SC, where she said that:
Since the inception of the JBC more than twenty (20) years ago,
submission of the SALN of candidates, was not required. SALN became
one of the requirements only starting 2009, for candidates for appellate
magistracy who were from the private sector. Later, in February 2011,
SALNs for the past two (2) years were required. Starting 7 January 2013 to
date, SALNs for the past two (2) years have been required of applicants in
government service and SALNs for the preceding year, with respect to
applicants from the private sector.
It was only in the case of the Chief Justice post that the JBC, in the
exercise of its discretion, required "[a]ll previous SALNs (up to 31
December 2011) for those in govemment."133
132
TSN, Oral Arguments dated April 10, 2018, pp. 88-90.
133
Comment of Former Justice Aurora Santiago Lagman in A.M No. 17-11-12-SC and A.M. No. 17-11-
17-SC, p. 8.
Therefore, by no stretch of the imagination can it be argued that JBC

"bargained away" the Constitutional qualification of 'integrity', as the body
has consistently been screening applicants based on the criteria it deems best
proves that the applicant possesses the same. For the body tasked by the
Constitution to define and determine who possesses integrity, the submission
of SALNs is not a measure of the same. The absurdity of the ponencia 's
insistence that non-filing of SALN or incomplete or non-submission of past
SALNs to the JBC means a lack of "proven integrity" is obvious when the
import of the ruling is extended: all members of the Court who could not have
complied with this ruling because the submission of all past SALNs was not
required during their application process, say, pre-2009, do not have "proven
integrity."
The SALN serves a purpose, but it is not

to cast doubt upon the validity of a
public officer's appointment or to
impeach him.
The foregoing discussion does not intend to downplay the importance

of complying with the SALN requirement. Concededly, the filing of SALNs
is a Constitutional and statutory requirement which every public official
should comply with. Being the fundamental law of the land, however, the
Constitution cannot provide in specific detail what the requirement of
submission under oath of the declaration of assets, liabilities, and net worth
entails. The Constitution only very broadly provided that it is required:
Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of

office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration
under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President,
the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme
Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and
officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be
disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.134
Hence, implementing legislation was needed to be passed by Congress

to ensure the effective implementation of this requirement. Thus, R.A. No.
6713135 was enacted and provided the following:
SEC. 8. Statements and Disclosure. - Public officials and

employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under
oath of, and the public has the right to know, the assets, liabilities, net worth
and financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of
unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their
households.
(A) Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure.

- All public officials and employees, except those who serve in an
134
1987 CONSTITUTION, Art. XII.
135
CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, February 20,
1989.
honorary capacity, laborers and casual or temporary workers, shall file

under oath their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and a
Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections and those of
their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living
in their households.
The two documents shall contain information on the following:
(a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value

and current fair market value;
(b) personal property and acquisition cost;
(c) all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks,
stocks, bonds, and the like;
(d) liabilities; and
(e) all business interests and financial connections.
The documents must be filed:
(a) within thirty (30) days after assumption of office;

(b) on or before April 30, of every year thereafter; and
, ( c) within thirty (30) days after separation from the service.
All public officials and employees required under this section to file
the aforestated documents shall also execute within thirty (30) days from
the date of their assumption of office, the necessary authority in favor of the
Ombudsman to obtain from all appropriate government agencies, including
the Bureau of Internal Revenue, such documents as may show their
liabilities, net worth, and also their business interests and financial
connections in previous years, including, if possible, the year when they
first assumed any office in the Government.
Husband and wife who are both public officials or employees may
file the required statements jointly or separately.
The Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the

Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections shall be filed
by:
(1) Constitutional and national elective officials, with the national

office of the Ombudsman;
(2) Senators and Congressmen, vvith the Secretaries of the Senate

and the House of Representatives, respectively; Justices, with
the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court; Judges, with the Court
Administrator; and all national ex cutive officials with the
Office of the President.
(3) Regional and local officials and employees, with the Deputy
Ombudsman in their respective regions;
(4) Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval
captain, with the Office of the President, and those below said
ranks, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions;
and
(5) All other public officials and employees, defined in Republic

Act No. 3019 as amended, with the Civil Service Commission.
(B) Identification and disclosure of relatives. - It shall be the duty

of every public official or employee to identify and disclose to the best of
his knowledge and information, his relatives in the Government in the form,
manner and frequency prescribed by the Civil Service Commission.
(C) Accessibility of documents. - (1) Any and all statements filed

under this Act, shall be made available for inspection at reasonable hours.
(2) Such statements shall be made available for copying or

reproduction after ten (10) working days from the time they are filed as
required by law.
(3) Any person requesting a copy of a statement shall be required to

pay a reasonable fee to cover the cost of production and mailing of such
statement, as well as the cost of certification.
(4) Any statement filed under this Act shall be available to the public
for a period of ten (10) years after receipt of the statement. After such
period, the statement may be destroyed unless needed in an ongoing
investigation.
(D) Prohibi(ed acts. -- It shall be unlawful for any person to obtain

or use any statement filed under this Act for:
(a) any purpose contrary to morals or public policy; or
(b) any commercial purpose other than by news and

communications media for dissemination in the general public.
The same law likewise provided for the penalty for non-compliance,
which was either a fine or imprisonment, or both, in case of a criminal
prosecution, or removal in case of an administrative proceeding.
SEC. 11. Penalties. - (a) Any public official or employee,

regardless of whether or not he holds office or employment in a casual,
temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing any
violation of this Act, shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the
equivalent of six (6) months salary or suspension not exceeding one (1)
year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice
and hearing by the appropriato body or agency. If the violation is punishable
by a heavier penalty under another law, he shall be prosecuted under the
latter statute. Violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall be punishable
with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five
thousand pesos (PS,000), or both, and in the discretion of the court of
competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold public office.
(b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative

proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public
official or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against
him. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Thus, the law governing the submission of SALNs, while concededly

providing that the penalty may be removal, still requires a finding of
culpability in a "proper administrative proceeding" or, theoretically, in a
criminal prosecution. Certainly, a quo warranto proceeding is not such
proceeding as it is, in the first place, a special civil action and neither an
administrative nor criminal proceeding. It was premature, therefore, for the
Court, through the ponencia, to have categorically ruled that the
respondent did not file her SAL1Vs when no case, administrative or
criminal, has been filed against her in accordance with R.A. No. 6713.
The general proposition that non-filing

of SALN means lack of integrity is
erroneous.
The case of Casimiro v. Rigor136 enunciated that the requirement of

filing a SALN serves as a valid check and balance mechanism to verify
undisclosed properties and wealth. The Court explained as follows:
x x x The requirement of filing a SALN is enshrined in the

Constitution to promote transparency in the civil service and serves as a
deterrent against government officials bent on enriching themselves through
unlawful means. By mandate oflaw, every government official or employee
must make a complete disclosure of his assets, liabilities and net worth in
order to avoid any issue regarding questionable accumulation of wealth.
The importance of requiring the submission of a complete, truthful, and
sworn SALN as a measure to defeat corruption in the bureaucracy cannot
be gainsaid. Full disclosure of wealth in the SALN is necessary to
particularly minimize, if not altogether eradicate, the opportunities for
official corruption, and maintain a standard of honesty in the public service.
Through the SALN, the public can monitor movement in the fortune of
a public official; it serves as a valid check and balance mechanism to
verify undisclosed properties and wealth. The failure to file a tmthful
SALN reasonably puts in doubts the integrity of the officer and normally
amounts to dishonesty.137 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
Thus, the rationa]e behind the SALN requirement among public

officials is not a matter of filing or non-filing, but is to curtail the "acquisition
of unexplained wealth. "138
Similarly, the addition of the requirement of proven competence,

integrity, probity, and independence in the 1987 Constitution was to uplift the
unbecoming reputation of the judiciary due to the corrupt practices of certain
judges and justices. As Commissioner Nolledo mentioned, there were
''justices and judges who would issue injunctive relief to the highest bidder
and would decide cases based on hundreds of thousands, and even millions,
of mercenary reasons."
As discussed, the requirement of the SALN during the 2012

application process for the Chief Justice position was prompted by the
impeachment of former Chief.Justice Renato Corona. When Senator Escudero
136
749 Phil. 917 (2014).
137 Id. at 929-930.
138
Office of the Ombudsman v. Racho, 656 Phil. 148, 161 (2011).
moved that the additional requirements be imposed, including the SALNs, he

manifested that the JBC would not want to recommend a person who would
be susceptible to such kind of attack, which pertains to the eventual removal
from office of former Chief Justice Renato Corona due to inaccuracies in his
SALN.
Clearly, all of these, if not solely motivated, was significantly driven,

by the crusade to eliminate corruption in the government. With this rationale,
the mere failure to submit SALNs without any intent to commit a wrong
is thus properly contextualized as not meaning that the person lacks
integrity. The case of Daplas v. Department of Finance13 9 is instructive:
Indeed, the failure to file a truthful SALN puts in doubt the integrity
of the public officer or employee, and would normally amount to
dishonesty. It should be emphasized, however, that mere non
declaration of the required data in the SALN does not automatically
amount to such an offense. Dishonesty requires malicious intent to
conceal the truth or to make false statements. In addition, a public
officer or employee becomes susceptible to dishonesty only when such
non-declaration results in the accumulated wealth becoming manifestly
disproportionate to his/her incom , and income from other sources,
and he/she fails to properly account or explain these sources of income
and acquisitions.
xxxx
It should be emphasized that the laws on SALN aim to curtail the

acquisition of unexplaiped wealth. Thus, in several cases where the
source of the undisclosed wealth was properly accounted for, the Court
deemed the same an "e,xplained wealth" which the law does not
penalize. Consequently, absent any intent to commit a wrong, and having
accounted for the source of the "undisclosed wealth," as in this case,
petitioner cannot be adjudged guilty of the charge of Dishonesty; but at the
most, of mere negligence for having failed to accomplish her SALN
properly and accurately. 140 (Additional emphasis supplied; citations
omitted)
At this juncture, it is also important to differentiate the case of the

respondent from that of former Chief Justice Corona. In the latter's case, he
was charged with betrayal of public trust and/or culpab]e violation of the
Constitution for (1) failing to di close his SALN, (2) failure to include certain
properties in the SALN, and (3) alleged hidden wealth. These charges have
not been levelled against the respondent. She is merely accused of not filing
her SALNs. Chief Justice Corona was convicted because he had undeclared
dollar and peso deposits which were manifestly out of proportion to his lawful
income and he failed to provide any explanation on how he obtained such
funds. Thus, the case of Chief Justice Corona correctly applied the rule on
SALN requirement when it delved into the real issue of curtailing the
acquisition of unexplained wealth.
139
G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017.
140
Id. at 6-7.
The Announcement required that for

those engaged in government practice,
all previous SALNs shall be submitted.
The Announcement dated June 5, 2012 required the applicants to submit

to the JBC, "in addition to the usual documentary requirements," the
following documents:
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. (Emphasis supplied)
Aside from the respondent, there are other applicants engaged in

government service, who failed to submit all of their previous SALNs (up to
31 December 2011), to wit:141
•.
Candidates for Years in Number of JBC's Remarks on the examination of

position of Chief government SALNs142 the list with regard to the SALNs
Justice of the Supreme service based (Minutes of the JBC Special En Banc
Court on the meeting, July 20, 2012)
"matrix"/ 20
July 2012
ORSN Revort
Abad, Roberto 21 6 There being no objection, the Council

agreed that Justice Abad had
SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED
with the requirements of the JBC.
i
I
I ..,
Bautista, Andres 6 I .) Minutes did not show any comment as
reeards SALN submission
Brion, Arturo 22 12 Has substantiallv complied
Cagampang-De 12 1 No notes/remark provided

Castro, Soledad M.
Carpio, Antonio 17 15 Has substantiallv comolied
De Lima, Leila 11 6 Has substantiallv comolied
141
Annex "37," Respondent's Memorandum (Submission of documentary requirements and SALN of
candidates for Chief Justice of the Philippines (with corresponding report on professional background)
dated 20 July 2012.
142
All SALNs with distinct dates were considered for purposes of counting the Number of SALNs.
Legarda, Maria 9 1 No notes/remark provided

Carolina
Leonardo-De Castro, 39 15 Has substantially complied

Teresita
Pangalanan, Raul 28 8 Justice Lagman moved that the SALNs

of Dean Pangalangan be considered as
substantial compliance.
Sarmiento, Rene 22 1 Has lacking SALNs
Sereno, Maria Lourdes 22 3 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 (sic).
Senator Escudero mentioned that

Justice Sereno was his professor at U.P.
and that they were required to submit
SALNs during those years.
Siavngco, Manuel 25 18 Has complied
Valdez, Amado 13 (6) 1 Has lacking requirements
Zamora, Ronalda 43 I Has lacking SALNs and MCLE cert.
As earlier stated, Senator Francis G. Escudero, as then ex officio

member, had suggested that "at least an attempt to comply with a particular
requirement" can be used as a parameter for determining substantial
compliance.143 As such, some of the applicants, who did not submit all of their
previous SALNs, as was required by the published Announcement, were still
shortlisted because of substantial compliance, namely:
a. Abad, Roberto
b. Carpio, Antonio
c. Brion, Arturo
d. Leonardo-De Castro, Teresita
e. Zamora, Ronaldo
In doing so, I believe that the JBC did not act with grave abuse of
discretion because it is well within its authority to determine what substantial
compliance to its requirements shall mean. Thus, in Villanueva,144 the Court
ruled: ·
As the constitutional body granted with th·e power of searching for,

screening, and selecting applicants relative to recommending appointees to
143
Minutes of the JBC Special En Banc Meeting, July 20, 2012, p. 10.
144
Supra note l 05.
the Judiciary, the JBC has the authority to determine how best to perform
such constitutional mandate. Pursuant to this authority, the JBC issues
various policies setting forth the guidelines to be observed in the evaluation
of applicants, and formulates rules and guidelines in order to ensure that the
rules are updated to respond to existing circumstances. Its discretion is freed
from legislative, executive or judicial intervention to ensure that the JBC is
shielded from any outside pressure and improper in iluence. 145
The JBC was not misled into including

the respondent in the shortlist.
The respondent submitted to the JBC her SALNs for the years 2009,
2010, and 2011. She also executed a waiver of confidentiality of her local and
foreign bank accounts. On July 20, 2012, the respondent received a call from
the JBC, through then Chief of Office of the Office of Recruitment, Selection
and Nomination (ORSN), Atty. Pascual, asking for her SALNs for the years
1995 to 1999.
The respondent then called the U.P. College of Law, but she was
informed that said SALNs were not in her 201 File. Thus, she was advised to
write a letter-request to the UP HRDO instead. As there was no opportunity
to secure those SALNs in time for the July 23, 2012 deadline, the respondent
wrote a letter dated July 23, 2012 addressed to the JBC explaining why she
will not be able to submit the SALNs from 1995-1999. She stated that
"[c]onsidering 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."146
During the JBC en bane meeting held on July 20, 2012, the members
delegated to the Executive Committee the responsibility of determining
whether an applicant had substantially complied with the SALN requirement.
A Report dated July 24, 2012 of the ORSN indicates that the respondent as a
candidate for the position of Chief Justice of the Philippines has "COMPLETE
REQUIREMENTS." 147 The same Report includes the following remark:
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.
Thus, it is clear that the Executive Committee, within the exercise of

their authority, adjudged the respondent's submission of her three SALNs,
together with her letter-explanation, as substantial compliance to these
additional requirements. Thus, the JBC, which solely determines whether
a candidate has substantially complied with all the documentary
requirements, made a determination that respondent had indeed
substantially complied.
145
Id. at 556.
146
Annex "11," Respondent's Comment.
147
Annex "38," Respondent's Memorandum.
Worthy of note, Former Justice Aurora Santiago Lagman, up to the

present time, stands by the JBC's determination on the question of substantial
compliance:
It was also in the exercise of its discretion that the JBC deemed some
of the aspirants for the Chief Justice post with incomplete documents like
SALNs to have substantially complied. It may be rpentioned herein that the
JBC also exempted some of the incumbent Justices of this Honorable Court
who were candidates for the said position, from submitting clearances and
other documentary requirements.
xxxx
It must be recalled that without any objection from the other JBC
Members, the Ex Officio Member who was the proponent of the
requirement of all previous SALNs of candidates from the government
sector defined the ''parameter of substantial compliance" as an "attempt
to comply with the particular requirement;" and that if indeed those with
lacking documents are "serious with their application, they should inform
the JBC as to the reason for failing to comply with certain requirements."
The Execom enjoys the presumption that it regularly performed the

task delegated to it in the 20 J4ly 2012 en bane meeting of determining
whether the eleven (11) candidates with deficiencies in documents,
including then Justice Sereno, had substantially complied with the
documentary requirements - guided by the aforementioned parameter and on
the basis of the documents submitted by the applicants and the profile
matrices anc,l reports submitted by the ORSN.
Then Justice Sereno was deemed to have substantially complied

with the requirements, on the basis of her letter to the JBC dated 23 July
2012 and considering further that another candidate who was similarly
situated as be (sic) was not able to submit several SALNs when he was a
Professor of the University of the Philippines, was deemed by the
JBC En Banc in its 20 July 2012 meeting to have substantially complied
with the requirements. 148 (Emphasis in the original)
Furthermore, JBC regular.members Atty. Jose V. Mejia and Atty. Maria

Milagros Fernan-Cayosa (Re; Resolution dated February 20, 2018) in A.M.
No. 17-11-12-SC and A.M. No. 17-11-17-SC state in their Joint Comment:
Then-Associate Justice Sereno was included in the shortlist because
she possesses the constitutionally prescribed qualifications for a Chief
Justice. She was recommended for the position. She confom1ed with the
recommendation. She submitted her supporting documents for her
application. She was interviewed. Her application was deliberated by the JBC
En Banc. She garnered the required votes to be nominated for the position.149
148
Comment of Fonner Justice Aurora Santiago Lagman in A.M No. 17-11-12-SC and A.M. No. 17-11- 17-
SC, pp. 9-10.
149
Joint Comment of Atty. Jose V. M!;;jia and Atty. Maria Milagros Feman-Cayosa (Re: Resolution dated
February 20, 2018) in A.M. No. 17-11-12-SC and A.M. No. 17-11-1i-SC, paragraph 6.
As well, it would not be amiss to point out that at the time the
respondent applied for the position of Chief Justice, she was a sitting Member
of the Court.
Uncontroverted by the petitioner, respondent testified under oath

during the Oral Argument 150 that when she applied for the position of
Associate Justice in 2010, and consistent with the fact that she was not a
government employee for the period of 2006-2009, she was considered as a
private sector applicant. Hence, she was not required to submit previous
SALNs and was only made to execute a SAL along with the waiver of
confidentiality of bank deposits. Following its own rules, the JBC determined
that the respondent had all the constitutional qualifications for a member of
the Court.
Now, as a sitting Member of the Court, who had already hurdled

the test of integrity when she was appointed as Associate Justice in 2010,
respondent's integrity was no longer, as it could no longer be made,
subject to any question. Thus, the JBC could not have been misled as to
the integrity of the respondent when the JBC already had an earlier
occasion to knowingly and intelligently determine her integrity.
The JBC's determination of a person's

integrity is a political question outside of
the jurisdiction of the Court.
Moreover, I agree with the respondent that the determination of whether

a person is of proven integrity is a political question that is outside the
jurisdiction of this Court. In Garcia v. Executive Secretary, 151 the Court
explained the nature of a political question as follows:
As Tanada v. Cuenco15 2 [Tanada] puts it, political questions refer

"to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the
people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of
government." Thus, if an issue is clearly identified by the text of the
Constitution as matters for discretionary action by a particular branch
of government or to the people themselves then it is held to be a political
question. In the classic fonnulation of Justice Brennan in Baker v. Carr,
"[p]rominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question
is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to
a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and
manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding
without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial
discretion; or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent
resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of
government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political
150
TSN, Oral Arguments dated April 10, 2018, pp. 34-40.
151 602
Phil. 64 (2009).
152 103 Phil. 1051 (1957).
decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from

multifarious pronouncements by various departments on the one
question."153 [Emphasis supplied.]
The OSG argues that for a political question to exist, there must be in
the Constitution a power vested exclusively in the President or Congress.154 It
further avers that the issue of whether the respondent is a person of proven
integrity had not been committed under the Constitution to a coordinate
political department - either the executive or legislative department and that
the JBC is not under the executive or legislative department.155 Contrary to
the OSG's position, I am of the view that the application of the political
question doctrine is not limited to the executive and legislative departments.
As abovementioned in the case of Tanada 156 and In re McConaughy,157 such
question covers a situation where the resolution of a particular question has
been specifically delegated to some other department of the government, with
discretionary power to act:
x x x What is generally meant, when it is said that a question is

political, and not judicial, is that it is a matter which is to be exercised by the
people in their primary political capacity, or that it has been specifically
delegated to some otl1er department or particular officer of the
government, with discretio11ary power to act.xx x158 (Emphasis supplied)
The JBC, as the constitutional bo4y granted with the power of searching
for, screening, and selecting applicants relative to recommending appointees
to the Judiciary, clearly exercises discretionary power and is a department of
the government.
Further, the case of Abella, Jr. v. CSC,159 where the Court affirmed that
appointment is an essentially discretionary power and is a political question,
applies in this case:
Appointment is an essentially discretionary power and must be
perfonned by the officer in which it is vested according to his best lights,
the only condition being that the appointee should possess the qualifications
required by law. If he does, then the appointment cannot be faulted on the
ground that there are others better qualified who should have been preferred.
This is a political question involving considerations of wisdom which only
the appointing authority can decide.
Significantly, "the selection of the appointee - taking into

account the totality of his qualifications, including those abstract
qualities that define his personality - is the prerogative of the
appointing authority. No tribunal, not even this Court, may compel the
153
Id. at 74, citing Tafiada v. Cuenco, id. and Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186.
154
OSG Memorandum, p. 42.
155
Id. at 43.
156
Supra note 152.
157
119 N.W. 408.
158
Supra note 152, at 1067.
159
485 Phil. 182 (2004).
exercise of an appointment for a favored person.160 (Emphasis supplied;

citations omitted)
The Solicitor General failed to discharge

his burden to prove non-filing.
I disagree with the majority that the Republic was able to discharge its
burden of proof and thus, it is now incumbent upon respondent to discharge
her burden of evidence. The Republic relies on these three documents:
161
a. Letter dated December 8, 2017 from the UP HRDO,
through its Director, Dr. Angela D. Escoto, which states in
part:
1. On the lack of Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth

(SALN) of Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes A. Sereno, for the years
2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006:
These documents are not contained in the 201 file ofChiefJustice

Sereno. Her 201 records show that she was on official leave from
the University of the Philippines for the following periods:
June 1, 2000 - May 31, 2001

June 1, 2001 - May 31, 2002
November I, 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
June 1, 2006 - resigned
xxxx
3. On the requested certification that only the SALN for 31

December 2002 can be found in the 201 file of Chief Justice
Sereno:
We respectfully submit the attached certification marked as

"Annex B" and the 2002 SALN we previously submitted to
the Committee marked as "Annex B•l".
b. Certification 162 dated December 8, 2017, also issued by

the UP HRDO, through Dr. Escoto, which states:
This is to certify that based on the 201 files of
Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes A.
Sereno under the custody of the Information
Management Section of the Human Resources
Development Office, University of the Philippines
Diliman, it was found that between the period 2000
160
Id. at 195-196.
161
Annex "D," Petition.
162
Annex "B," id.
[to] 2009 the SALN submission on file is as of

December 31, 2002.
This further certifies that documents in the same 201 file

referred to above indicate that Chief Justice Sereno resigned
from the University of the Philippines on 01 June 2006.
c. Certification 163 dated December 4, 2017 issued by the

Central Records Division of the Office of the
Ombudsman, through SALN In-Charge" Ms. Julie Ann A.
Garcia, which states:
This is to certify that based on records on file, there
is no SALN filed by MS. MARIA LOURDES A. SERENO
for calendar years 1999 to 2009 except SALN ending
December 1998 which was submitted to this Office on
December 16, 2003.
The majority deems that these letter, certifications, and the records of
the UP HRDO and the Ombudsman conclusively establish that for the years
1986, 1987, 1988, 1992, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006,
respondent did not file her SALNs. Once more, I disagree. These letter and
certifications only prove that these SALNs were not in respondent's files -
they, however, do not constitute i>roof as to the guestion of whether or
. .. -
not she had not filed her SALNs.
Further, contrary to the ponencia's position, the case of Concerned

Taxpayer v. Doblada, Jr.164 i§. applicable as reg ds the appreciation of the
certifications relied on by the Republic. In the said case, the Court held that one
cannot readily conclude that a person has failed to file his sworn SAL(N)
simply because these documents are missing in the files of the those who are
required to keep it. It also gave credence to the fact that the rep01t of the Office
of the Court Administrator simply stated that it does not have on its file the
subject SAL of Doblada an.ct that there was no categorical statement that
Doblada failed to file his SAL for the years mentioned. The Court ruled as
follows:
Moreover, we find no sufficient evidence to prove that respondent
failed to file his SAL for the years 1975, 1977 to 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994,
1997, 1999 and 2000. Respondent maintains that he bas consistently filed
his SAL for the said years. To prove his contention, respondent submitted a
copy of a letter .dated May 7, 2001 sent by Remegio C. Afiosa, Acting
Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 155, RTC, Pasig City, stating therein that
attached to said letter are the sworn SAL of the staff of RTC Pasig City,
Branch 155, including that of respondent's, for the year 2000. The letter was
sent to and duly received by the OCA but the SAL of respondent for 2000
is one of those missing in the files of OCA. On this premise, one cannot
readily conclude that respondent failed to file his sworn SAL for the
years 1975, 1977 to 1988 1990, 1992, 1994, 1997, 1999 and 2000 simply
because these documents are missing in the files of the OCA. Even in
163
Annex "C," id.
164
498 Phil. 395 (2005).
the report of the Court Administrator dated February 3, 2005, there was no
categorical statement that respondent failed to file his SAL for the
years earlier mentioned. The report of the OCA simply stated that it
does not have on its file the subject SAL of respondent.165 (Emphasis
supplied)
Similarly, the letter and certifications of the UP HRDO only state that
"these documents are not contained in the 201 file of Chief Justice Sereno" and
"it was found that between the period 2000 [to] 2009 the SALN submission on
file is as of December 31, 2002/' respectively. There is no categorical statement
that the respondent failed to file her SALN for the years requested as stated in
the letter and the certifications. Thus, these do not constitute sufficient proof to
conclude that respondent had failed to file her SALNs.
As regards the certification issued by the Office of the Ombudsman, it

merely states that "there is no SALN filed by MS. MARIA LOURDES A.
SERENO for calendar years 1999 to 2009 except SALN ending December
1998 which is submitted to this Office on December 16, 2003". Again, this
language says only what it means: that the only SALN on file with the Office
of the Ombudsman was the SALN ending December 1998. Accordingly, like
the UP HRDO letter and certification, this does not suffice to prove that
respondent failed to file her SALNs. Contrary to the ponencia's
interpretation, the phrase "there is no SALN filed by MS. MARIA LOURDES
A. SERENO for calendar years 1999 to 2009" can only be understood as a
reference to what was on file with the Office of the Ombudsman - and this
is evident from its juxtaposition of the exception, "except SALN ending
December 1998 which is submitted to this Office on December 16, 2003". To
be sure, the fact that UP professors could submit their SALNs also with the
UP HRDO means that the Office of the Ombudsman was not, as it could not
be, in any position to make a definitive statement as to whether respondent
had failed to file her SALNs.
For the years that respondent was a professor in the University of the
Philippines, i.e., 1986-2006, the UP HRDO was, in fact, able to produce the
following SALNs: 1985, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and
2002.166 Meanwhile, the respondent was able to retrieve her SALNs for the
years 1989 and 1998 and was able to find a certified true copy of a page of a
notarial book of Notary Public, Atty. Eugenia A. Borlas showing that she
executed her SALN for year 1999.167 Thus, the fact that respondent was able
to establish that there are SALNs which are not in the records of the UP
HRDO thus situated her similarly to Doblada who was able to present a letter
stating that attached to said letter are the sworn SAL of the staff of RTC Pasig
City, Branch 155, including that of respondent's, for the year 2000. In plain
terms, therefore, the Court's ruling that one cannot readily conclude that
a person has failed to file his SALN simply because these documents are
165
Id. at 404.
166
Ponencia, p. 5.
167
Annex "47," Respondent's Memorandum.
missing in the files of those who. are required to keep them applies
foursquare to the respondent.
Accordingly, it is quite clear that the burden of evidence has not shifted
to the respondent.
Moreover, and contrary to the ponencia's contention that the burden of

proof in quo warranto cases rests on the defendant or respondent, as against
the State at least, to show his right to the office from which it is sought to oust
him,168 the Court, in the case of David v. Senate Electoral Tribunal,169 ruled
that the burden of proof necessarily falls on the party who brings the action
and who alleges that the respondent is ineligible for the office involved in the
controversy. The Court stated as follows:
In an action for quo warranto, the burden of proof necessarily

falls on the party who brings the action and who alleges that the
respondent is ineligible for the office involved in the controversy. In
proceedings before quasi--judicial bodies such as the Senate Electoral
Tribunal, the requisite quantum of proof is substantial evidence. This burden
was petitioner's to discharge. Once the petitioner makes a prima facie case,
the burden of evidence shifts to the respondent.170
The Chief Justice te§tified under oath by during the Oral

Argument, 171 that she consistently filed her SALNs during her entire
employment in the UP College of Law. In support, she also submitted her
1989 and 1998 SALNs, and independent proof of having subscribed to her
1999 SALN.172 As against the certifications from UP HRDO and Ombudsman
of some SALNs not being on file, which have been shown as insufficient to
shift the burden of proof to the respondent, I find that on the strength of the
testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the respondent, there can
be no finding that she did not consistently file her SALNs.
Consequently. it becomes painfully apparent that the decision

reached by the maiority to oust the Chie{Justice is not even for the graver
offense ofnon-{iling o(SALN under R.A. No. 6713 - which was the only
basis of the quo warranto petition -. - but for the non-submission of the
"additional documentary require,ment ' of aUprevious SALNs to the JBC
required by the Announcement.
-
Conclusion
The filing by the Solicitor General of the present quo warranto petition
to oust the Chief Justice appears to be an admission on the part of the
168
Ponencia, p. 103 citing Vicente J. Francisco, Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Volwne lV-B,
Special Civil Actions, 1972.
169
G.R. No. 221538, September 20, 2016, 803 SCRA 435.
170
Id.at509-510.
171
TSN, Oral Arguments dated April 10, 2Gl8, pp.109-116.
172
Attached to the Ad Caulelam Manifestation/Submission of the Chief Justice.
Executive department that the grounds for impeachment, including the ground
upon which this quo warranto petition is based, rest on shaky grounds.
Understanding the inherent weakness of the grounds of impeachment and the
improbability of ouster through the mode constitutionally provided, the
Solicitor General has effectively shopped for a different forum to seek the
Chief Justice's ouster. This is not a road less travelled - it is a prohibited
alleyway that, regrettably, the Court is now allowing passage through.
To me, what had been shown in the hearings before the Committee on
Justice in the House of Representatives are all internal matters that, to some,
bespeak the lack of able leadership by the Chief Justice. The acts complained
of, including the alleged failure to submit SALNs, are actionable under
existing laws - provided the respondent is first impeached following settled
and unequivocal jurisprudence.
Judicial power rests in the Court en bane. The Chief Justice, primus
inter pares, is first in precedence but does not exercise judicial power on his
own. The members of the Court are not without recourse - are not without
power - to address any perceived encroachment being committed by the
Chief Justice on the powers of the Court en bane. The Court's inability to
resolve this leadership issue within its own walls and the need to ventilate
these matters before another forum is a disservice to the institution and to the
individual members of the Court. For the Court to now turn around and oust
the Chief Justice on its own, without any constitutional basis, is an even
greater disservice.
I view with deep shame and regret this day when the Court has ousted
one of its sitting Members upon the prodding of a mere agency of a separate
coordinate department. I steadfastly maintain that the members of the Court
cannot and should not allow themselves to be used in this manner. No matter
how dislikable a member of the Court is, the rules cannot be changed just to
get rid of him, or her in this case. The other members of the Court -- the Court
en bane - are called upon to grin and bear the unbearable as travelling this
prohibited road will be at the expense and to the extreme prejudice of the
independence of the entire !udiciary, the independence of the Court's
individual members, and the freedom of discourse within the Court. This case
marks the tjme when the Court commits seppuku - without honor.
In view of the foregoing, I vote to DISMISS the petition.

Caguioa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Caguioa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Caguioa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

G.R. No. 237428 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by

May 11, 201'& /

This quo warranto petition is brought before the Court purportedly to

Contrary to the decision reached by the majority, it is my view that the

I. Quo warranto, except only as explicitly allowed by the

under the rules promulgated by the Presidential Electoral Tribunal

2. Even assuming that quo warranto is available, the alleged non­

4. Even assuming again, that the non-submission or incomplete

6. And finally, even assuming that quo warranto is available to remove

Save for quo warranto which may be

The concept of impeachment was first introduced in the Philippines

As approved, Article IX of the 1935 Constitution read:

SECTION I. The President, the Vice-President, the Justices of the Supreme

SECTION 2. The Commission on Impeachment of the National Assembly,

SECTION 4. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further

While the impeachment provisions found in the 1935 Constitution rest

Esteemed Constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas explains the

II Jose M. Aruego, The Framing of the Philippine Constitution 587 (1937).

Coming now to the prov1s1ons of our Constitution regarding

The impeachment provisions under the 1935 Constitution were

Subsequently, the 1973 impeachment provisions were carried over to

While proposals to transfer the "powers of impeachment trial"7 from

Hence, at present, the provisions governing impeachment under the

Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the

Section 3. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive

(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any

(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is

(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same

(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than

(8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to

1. Pursuant to the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) Rules, the

2. Section 2, Article XI permits resort to alternative modes of removal,

3. Jurisprudence permits cognizance of quo warranto petitions filed

As will be discussed henceforth, the foregoing premises, and the

Quo warranto challenging the election,

This is egregious error.

Lest it be overlooked, the filing of election protests assailing the

Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by

The proposition that quo warranto is available as against the President

§644. Ordinarily it would seem to be a sufficient objection to the exercise

By parity of reasoning, except only for the textual commitment in the

The spirit, intent and purpose behind the

According to the ponencia, the language employed by Article XI,

This interpretation is fundamentally flawed as it puts unwarranted

De Mesa v. Mencias21 teaches:

x x x While the ordinary acceptations of [the terms "may" and

mandatory or directory character of statutory provisions, they are in no

To further support this position, the ponencia quotes a passage from

While the observation may be valid as to the U.S. formulation of

There are indeed parallel provisions relating to impeachment between

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States reads:

Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution reads:

The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme

Obviously, the power to remove by the Legislature under the

To be sure, the use ofShartel's exposition justifying the removal of federal

To stress, the impeachment mechanism had been crafted and

Quo warranto cannot proceed against a

2. Even assuming that quo warranto is available, the alleged non

It is also suggested that according to Agcaoili vs. Suguitan, the one