Dissenting Opinion 2 G.R. No.

237428

When the position of the Chief Justice became vacant in 2012, upon
EN BANC the impeachment of then Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, the Judicial and
Bar Council (JBC) issued an announcement for the opening of the Chief
Justice position. Included in the documents required to be submitted were
G.R. No. 237428 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented the SALNs of the applicant: All previous SALNs (up to 31December2011)
by SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA, Petitioner v. HON. for those in the government or SALN as of 31 December 2011 for those
CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO, Respondent. from the private sector. 3 As an applicant for the Chief Justice position,
respondent submitted to the JBC her SALNs only for the years 2009, 2010,
Promulgated: and 2011, despite being in government service for 20 years (1986-2006) as a

x----------------------------------- professor at the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law. The
\

Ce1iification dated 8 December 2017 of Director Angela D. Escoto of the UP

Human Resources Development Office (UP HRDO) stated that based on the
201 files of respondent under the custody of the UP HRDO, between the
period of 2000 to 2009, the respondent's SALN on file is only as of 31
DISSENTING OPINION
December 2002. Based on the records, it appears that while employed at the
UP College of Law, respondent only submitted her SALNs for the years
CARPIO, J.:
1985, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 4 and 2002. 5
This quo warranto petition, filed by the Republic of the Philippines,
represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), seeks to nullify the
/.Failure to File SALN
appointment of respondent Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno as Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court, an impeachable officer under Section 2, Article XI of the
No less than the Constitution mandates the filing of the SALN by all
Constitution, 1 for lack of proven integrity which is required under Section
public officers and employees upon assumption of office and as often
7(3), Article VIII of the Constitution2 for appointment to a judicial post.
thereafter as may be required by law. Section 17, Article XI of the
Petitioner asserts that respondent's repeated failure to file her Statement of
Constitution expressly declares:
Assets, Liabilities, and Networth (SALN) as required by law shows lack of
integrity. Sec. 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of
office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a
The qualifications of members of the Supreme Court are prescribed declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the
under Sections 7(1) and 7(3), Article VIII of the Constitution, to wit: case of the President, the Vice President, the Members of the Cabinet, the
Congress, the Supreme Court the Constitutional Commissions and other
Sec. 7. (l) No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag
Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner
the Philippines. A member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty provided by law. (Emphasis supplied)
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; Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, likewise requires the filing of the SALN by every government employee
(2) xx x not only upon assumption of office and every year thereafter, but also upon
the expiration of his term of office or upon his resignation or separation from
(3) A member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven
office. Section 7 of RA 3019 provides:
competence, integrity, probity, and independence. (Emphasis supplied)

This provision reads:

Sec. 2. The President, the Vi.:;e-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the
Members of the C•rnstitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office, jbc.judiciary.gov.ph/announcements/7012/CJ%20Vacancy%206-4-l 2.pdf (visited 11 May 2018).
on impeachment fo1, :ind ot: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, The certified true copy of respondent's 1998 SALN was obtained from the Office of the
graft and corruplion, oiht:1 hi,t:h 1:rimes, or hetrayal of public trust. Ali other public officers and Ombudsman.
employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not impeachment. The certified true copies of respondent's SALN for the years 1985, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995,
This provision reads: ' 1996, 1997, and 2002 were obtained from the Human Resources Development Office of the UP-
Sec. 7 (3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, Diliman. Respondent furnished the Court a photocopy of her 1989 SALN but it was not a certified
probity, and independence. true copy.
Dissenting Opinion 3 G.R. No. 237428 Dissenting Opinion 4 G.R. No. 237428

Section 7. Statement of assets and liabilities. - Every public The documents must be filed:
officer, within thirty days after assuming office, thereafter, on or (a) within thirty (30) days after assumption of office;
before the fifteenth day of April following the close of every calendar (b) on or before April 30, of every year thereafter; and
year, as well as upon the expiration of his term of office, or upon his (c) within thirty (30) days after separation from the
resignation or separation from office, shall prepare and file with the service.
office of the corresponding Department Head, or in the case of a Head
of department or Chief of an independent office, with the Office of the All public officials and employees required under this section to
President, a true, detailed sworn statement of assets and liabilities, file the aforestated documents shall also execute, within thirty (30)
including a statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the days from the date of their assumption of office, the necessary
amounts of his personal and family expenses and the amount of authority in favor of the Ombudsman to obtain from all appropriate
income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year: Provided, That government agencies, including the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
the public officers assuming office less than two months before the end of such documents as may show their assets, liabilities, net worth, and
the calendar year, may file their first statement on or before the fifteenth also their business interests and financial connections in previous
day of April following the close of the said calendar year. 6 (Emphasis years, including, if possible, the year when they first assumed any
supplied) office in the Government.

The importance of filing a SALN for all public officials and Husband and wife who are both public officials or employees may
file the required statements jointly or separately.
employees is furthermore emphasized in RA 6713, 7 or the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, the latest law on The Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the
the matter and which has a more detailed provision of the SALN Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections
requirement. Section 8 of RA 6713 states: shall be filed by:
(1) Constitutional and national elective officials, with the
Section 8. Statements and Disclosure. - Public officials and employees national office of the Ombudsman;
have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath (2) Senators and Congressmen, with the Secretaries of the
of, and the public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively;
worth and financial and business interests including those of their Justices, with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court;
spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age Judges, with the Court Administrator; and all national
living in their households. executive officials with the Office of the President.
(3) Regional and local officials and employees, with the
(A) Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure. - Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions;
All public officials and employees, except those who serve in an (4) Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or
honorary capacity, laborers and casual or temporary workers, shall naval captain, with the Office of the President, and those
file under oath their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth below said ranks, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their
and a Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections respective regions; and
and those of their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (5) All other public officials and employees, defined in
( 18) years of age living in their households. Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, with the Civil Service
Commission.
The two documents shall contain information on the following:
(a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, (B) Identification and disclosure of relatives. - It shall be the duty of every
assessed value and current fair market value; public official or employee to identify and disclose, to the best of his
(b) personal property and acquisition cost; knowledge and information, his relatives in the Government in the form,
(c) all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in manner and frequency prescribed by the Civil Service Commission.
banks, stocks, bonds, and the like;
(d) liabilities, and; (C) Accessibility of documents. - (1) Any and all statements filed under
(e) all business interests and financial connections. 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.
As amended by RA 3047 (approved on 17 June 1961) and PD 677 (issued on 31 March 1975).
AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR (3) Any person requesting a copy of a statement shall be required to pay a
PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, TO UPHOLD THE TIME-HONORED PRINCIPLE reasonable fee to cover the cost of reproduction and mailing of such
OF PUBLIC OFFICE BEING A PUBLIC TRUST, GRANTING INCENTIVES AND REWARDS statement, as well as the cost of certification.
FOR EXEMPLARY SERVICE, ENUMERATING PROHIBITED ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS
AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES. RA 6713 was enacted on 20 February 1989 and took effect on 25 March 1989.
Dissenting Opinion 5 G.R. No. 237428 Dissenting Opinion 6 G.R. No. 237428

(4) Any statement filed under this Act shall be available to the public Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections
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 Section 1. Filing and Submission of SALN on Time and to the
investigation. Proper Official

(D) Prohibited acts. - It shall be unlawful for any person to obtain or use a. All public officials and employees, except those who serve in
any statement filed under this Act for: an official honorary capacity, without service credit or pay, temporary
laborers and casual or temporary and contractual workers, shall file
(a) any purpose contrary to morals or public policy; or under oath their SALNs and Disclosure of Business Interests and
(b) any commercial purpose other than by news and Financial Connections with their respective Chief or Head of the
communications media for dissemination to the general public. Personnel/Administrative Division or Unit/Human Resource
(Emphasis supplied) Management Office (HRMO), to wit:

1. Within thirty (30) days after assumption of office, statements of

Likewise highlighting the significance of the SALN, Executive Order which must be reckoned as of his/her first day of service;
No. 292 or the Administrative Code of 1987 explicitly declares as a general 2. On or before April 30 of every year thereafter, statements of which
principle governing government employees the filing of the SALN, thus: must be reckoned as of the end of the preceding year; and
3. Within thirty (30) days after separation from the service,
SECTION 34. Declaration of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth.-A statements of which must be reckoned as of his/her last day of
public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often office.
thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of
b. Public officials and employees under temporary status are also
his assets, liabilities, and net worth.
required to file under oath their SALNs and Disclosure of Business
Interests and Financial Connections in accordance with the guidelines
The Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards provided under these rules.
for Public Officials and Employees (Rules), 8 which was promulgated by the
Civil Service Commission (CSC) on 27 May 1989, clarified when the SALN c. Public officials and employees are strictly required to fill in all
should be filed. Section l(c) of Rule VII reads: applicable information and/or make a true and detailed statement of their
SALNs.
(c) When to File
Section 2. Duties of the Chief/Head of the
Personnel/Administrative Division or Unit/HRMO
The above documents under the Code must be filed:
(1) within thirty (30) days after assumption of office, statements of
Upon receiving the SALN forms, the Chief/Head of the
which must be reckoned as of his first day of service;
Personnel/Administrative Division or Unit/HRMO shall evaluate the same
(2) on or before April 30 of every year thereafter, statements of
to determine whether said statements have been properly accomplished. A
which must be reckoned as of the end of the preceding year; or
SALN is deemed properly accomplished when all applicable information
(3) within thirty (30) days after separation from the service,
or details required therein are provided by the filer. Items not applicable to
statements of which must be reckoned as of his last day of office.
the filer should be marked N/A (not applicable).
(Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)
The Chief/Head of the Personnel/Administrative Division or
CSC Resolution No. 06-0231 9 dated 1 February 2006 further clarified Unit/HRMO shall submit a list of employees in alphabetical order, who: a)
the procedure for the filing of the SALN by amending Rule VIII of the filed their SALNs with complete data; b) filed their SALNs but with
Rules. CSC Resolution No. 06-0231 reads in part: incomplete data; and c) did not file their SALNs, to the head of office,
copy furnished the CSC, on or before May 15 of every month. (Boldfacing
I. Rule VIII is hereby amended to read, as follows: and underscoring supplied)

Rule VIII. Review and Compliance Procedure in the Filing and The requirement of filing a SALN aims to suppress any questionable
Submission of the Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Networth and accumulation of wealth which usually results from non-disclosure of such
matters. 10 As held in Office of the Ombudsman v. Racho, 11 the rationale for
Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and requiring all public officers and employees to make a complete disclosure of
Employees <http://www.csc.gov.ph/2014-02-21-08-28-23/pdf-files/category/ 168-ra-67 l 3-code-of-
conduct-and-ethical-standards.html> (visited 2 May 2018).
ID
Review and Compliance Procedure in the Filing and Submission of the Statement of Assets, Dap/as v. Department a/Finance, G.R. No. 221153, 17 April 2017.
II
Liabilities and Net Worth and Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections. 656 Phil. 148. 160 (2011 ).
Dissenting Opinion 7 G.R. No. 237428 Dissenting Opinion 8 G.R. No. 237428

their assets, liabilities and net worth is to suppress and avoid the unlawful the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers, "accepted the view that
acquisition of wealth, and is aimed at curtailing and minimizing the [culpable violation of the Constitution] implied 'deliberate intent, perhaps
opportunities for official corruption in order to maintain a standard of even a certain degree of perversity for it is not easy to imagine that
honesty in the public service. Citing Carabeo v. Court of Appeals, 12 the individuals in the category of these officials would go so far as to defy
Court elucidated: knowingly what the Constitution commands."' 15

"Unexplained" matter normally results from "non-disclosure" or Betrayal of public trust, on the other hand, refers to acts "less than
concealment of vital facts. SALN, which all public officials and criminal but must be attended by bad faith and of such gravity and
employees are mandated to file, are the means to achieve the policy of seriousness as the other grounds for impeachment," as the Court held m
accountability of all public officers and employees in the government. By
Gonzales III v. Office of the President of the Philippines, 16 thus:
the SALN, the public are able to monitor movement in the fortune of a
public official; it is a valid check and balance mechanism to verify
undisclosed properties and wealth. Betrayal of public trust is a new ground for impeachment under
the 1987 Constitution added to the existing grounds of culpable violation
In Casimiro v. Rigor, 13 the Court stated that the filing of SALN of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption and other high
crimes. While it was deemed broad enough to cover any violation of the
promotes transparency in the civil service and serves as an effective
oath of office, the impreciseness of its definition also created
mechanism to verify undisclosed wealth, thus: apprehension that "such an overarching standard may be too broad and
may be subject to abuse and arbitrary exercise by the legislature." Indeed,
The requirement of filing a SALN is enshrined in the Constitution to the catch-all phrase betrayal of public trust that referred to "all acts not
promote transparency in the civil service and serves as a deterrent against punishable by statutes as penal offenses but, nonetheless, render the
government officials bent on enriching themselves through unlawful officer unfit to continue in office" could be easily utilized for every
means. By mandate of law, every government official or employee must conceivable misconduct or negligence in office. However, deliberating on
make a complete disclosure of his assets, liabilities and net worth in order some workable standard by which the ground could be reasonably
to avoid any issue regarding questionable accumulation of wealth. The interpreted, the Constitutional Commission recognized that human error
importance of requiring the submission of a complete, truthful, and sworn and good faith precluded an adverse conclusion.
SALN as a measure to defeat corruption in the bureaucracy cannot be
gainsaid. Full disclosure of wealth in the SALN is necessary to xx xx
particularly minimize, if not altogether eradicate, the opportunities for
official corruption, and maintain a standard of honesty in the public The Constitutional Commission eventually found it reasonably
service. Through the SALN, the public can monitor movement in the acceptable for the phrase betrayal of public trust to refer to "acts which
fortune of a public official; it serves as a valid check and balance are just short of being criminal but constitute gross faithlessness against
mechanism to verify undisclosed properties and wealth. The failure to file public trust, tyrannical abuse of power, inexcusable negligence of duty,
a truthful SALN reasonably puts in doubt the integrity of the officer and favoritism, and gross exercise of discretionary powers." In other words,
normally amounts to dishonesty. acts that should constitute betrayal of public trust as to warrant
removal from office may be less than criminal but must be attended
Considering that the requirement of filing a SALN within the period by bad faith and of such gravity and seriousness as the other grounds
prescribed by law is enshrined in the Constitution, the non-filing of SALN for impeachment. (Emphasis supplied)
within the prescribed period clearly constitutes a violation of an express
constitutional mandate. The repeated non-filing of SALN therefore Since the repeated failure to file the SALN constitutes culpable
constitutes culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust, it is immaterial if
trust, which are grounds for impeachment under the Constitution. the failure to file the SALN is committed before appointment to an
impeachable office. However, it is up to Congress, which is the
Culpable violation of the Constitution must be understood to mean constitutional body vested with the exclusive authority to remove
"willful and intentional violation of the Constitution and not violations impeachable officers, to determine if the culpable violation of the
committed unintentionally or involuntarily or in good faith or through an Constitution or betrayal of public trust, committed before appointment as an
honest mistake of judgment." 14 The framers of the Constitution, particularly impeachable officer, warrants removal from office considering the need to

12
622 Phil. 413, 429-430 (2009), citing Ombudsman v. Valeroso, 548 Phil. 688, 698 (2007).
\]
749 Phil. 917, 929-930 (2014). HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1553 (1949).
II
14
J. Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary 1112 (2003 J. Bernas, The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers 765 (1995 Edition), citing II RECORD at
Edition), citing II ARUEGO, THE FRAMING OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION 590 ( 1930); Report of 278.
16
the Special Committee on the Impeachment of President Quirino, IV CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 694 Phil. 52, I 00-10 I (2012).

v
 Dissenting Opinion 9 G.R. No. 237428 Dissenting Opinion 10 G.R. No. 237428

statute. Violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall be punishable with

maintain public trust in public office. For instance, if an impeachable officer
imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five
is discovered to have committed treason before his appointment, it is up to thousand pesos (P5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court of
the impeachment court to determine if the continuance in office of the competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold public office.
impeachable officer is detrimental to national security warranting removal
from 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
II. Period Required to Maintain SALN Records
instituted against him.

Under Section 8 (C) (4) of RA 6713, the SALNs shall be available to x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
the public in the custodian's office for 10 years from filing, after which
period, the SALNs may be destroyed unless needed in an ongoing The imposition of penalty for failure to file the SALN was clarified in
investigation. Since the government custodian is required to keep the CSC Resolution No. 06-0231:
SALNs for only 10 years, government employees cannot be required to keep
their SALNs for more than 10 years. Thus, applicants for government Section 4. Sanction for Failure to Comply/Issuance of a Show-
Cause Order
positions, in particular judicial positions, should not be required to submit
SALNs more than 10 years prior to the application. Incidentally, the Failure of an official or employee to correct/submit his/her SALN
vacancy for the Chief Justice post in 2012 was the first and only time that in accordance with the procedure and within the given period pursuant to
the JBC required applicants to submit all the SALNs they filed while in the directive in Section 3 hereof shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
government service prior to the application. Thereafter, the JBC only The Head of Office shall issue a show-cause order directing the official or
required the submission of SALNs for two years prior to the application. employee concerned to submit his/her comment or counter-affidavit; and
if the evidence so warrants, proceed with the conduct of the administrative
proceedings pursuant to the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in
Ill. Penalty and Prescription of the Offense of Failure to File SALN Civil Service (CSC Resolution No. 99-1936 dated August 31, 1999). The
offense of failure to file SALN is punishable under Rule IV, Section 52
RA 3019 states that as an administrative offense, the failure to file the (B) (8) thereof, with the following penalties:
SALN "shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public
officer, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him." 17 RA P 1 offense - Suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to 6
months
6713 provides a more specific penalty which is "a fine not exceeding the
equivalent of six ( 6) months salary or suspension not exceeding one ( 1) year, 2'"1 offense - Dismissal from the service
or removal depending on the gravity of the offense." Section 11 of RA
6713 reads: Section 5. Transmittal of all submitted SALNs to the concerned
agencies on or before June 30.
Section 11. Penalties. - (a) Any public official or employee, regardless of
whether or not he holds office or employment in a casual, ·temporary, The Chief/Head of the Personnel/Administrative Division or
holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing any violation of this Unit/HRMO shall transmit all original copies of the SALNs received, on
Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) or before June 30 of every years, to the concerned offices, as specified
months salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal below:
depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing
by the appropriate body or agency. If the violation is punishable by a xx xx
heavier penalty under another law, he shall be prosecuted under the latter
Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court - Justices of the Supreme
Court, Comi of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax
17
Section 9(b) ofRA3019 states: Appeals

Section 9. Penalties for violations. - xx x xx xx

(b) Any public officer violating any of the provisions of Section 7 [Statement of
assets and liabilities) of this Act shall be punished by a fine of not less than one thousand
pesos nor more than five thousand pesos, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year and
six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the Court.

The violation of said section proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall

be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public officer, even if no criminal
prosecution is instituted against him. (As amended by BP Big. 195, 16 March 1982)
Dissenting Opinion 11 G.R. No. 237428 Dissenting Opinion 12 G.R. No. 237428

On 24 January 2013, CSC Resolution No. 1300174 18 was promulgated should be read in conjunction with Section 2 of Act No. 3326 20 which
amending Section 3 (first paragraph) and Section 4 of CSC Resolution No. specifically provides when prescription shall begin to run for offenses
06-0231 to read as follows: penalized by special laws, thus:

Section 3. Ministerial Duty of the Head of Office to Issue SEC. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of
Compliance Order. the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at that time, from
the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its
Within five ( 5) days from receipt of the aforementioned list and investigation and punishment.
recommendation, it shall be the ministerial duty of the Head of Office to
issue an order requiring those who have incomplete data in their SALN to The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are
correct/supply the desired information and those who did not file/submit instituted against the guilty person and shall begin to run again if the
their SALN to comply within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.
from receipt of the said Order.
In the case of PCGG v. Desierto, 21 the Court ruled that when it is
Section 4. Sanction for Failure to Comply/Issuance of a Show impossible for the State to have known when the offense or violation took
Cause Order. place, the prescriptive period should be computed from the discovery of the
Failure of an official or employee to correct/submit his/her SALN commission thereof and not from the day of such commission. The Court
in accordance with the procedure and within the given period pursuant to held:
the directive in Section 3 hereof shall be a grow1d for disciplinary action.
The Head of Office shall issue a show-cause order directing the official or The case before us is not of first impression. On all fours is
employee concerned to submit his/her comment or counter-affidavit; and Presidential Ad Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans vs. Hon.
if the evidence so warrants, proceed with the conduct of the administrative Aniano A. Desierto, et al., also involving a complaint filed with the Office
proceedings pursuant to the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in of the Ombudsman for an alleged behest loan obtained by the Philippine
Civil Service (RRACCS), CSC Resolution No. 1101502 dated November Seeds, Inc. during the Marcos administration. We ruled therein that since
8, 2011. The offense of failure to file SALN is punishable under Section the law alleged to have been violated is Section 3 of Republic Act No.
46(D)(8) of Rule X thereof, with the following penalties: 3019, the applicable rule in the computation of the prescriptive period is
Section 2 of Act No. 3326, as amended, cited earlier. Under Section 2 of
First Offense - Suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to this Act, there are two (2) rules for determining when the period of
six (6) months prescription shall commence: First, on the day of the commission of the
violation, if such commission is known. Second, if the commission of the
Second Offense - Dismissal from the service violation is not known at the time, then, from discovery thereof and
institution of judicial proceedings for investigation and punishment.
Public officials and employees who fail to comply with the thirty
(30) day period required under Section 3 hereof or who submit their In this case, it was obviously impossible for the State, the aggrieved
SALNs beyond the said period shall be considered as not having filed their party, to have known when the questioned transactions took place. Clearly,
SALNs, and shall be made liable for the offense of Failure to File SALN the prescriptive period for the offense charged should be computed from
with a penalty of suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) the discovery of the commission thereof and not from the day of such
months for the first offense, and dismissal from the service for the second commission. 22 (Italicization in the original)
offense.

Heads of agencies/offices who fail to comply with the provisions

of CSC Resolution No. 06-0231 dated February 1, 2006, as amended, shall
be liable for Simple Neglect of Duty, which shall be punishable by
suspension of one ( 1) month and one ( 1) day to six (6) months for the first
offense, and dismissal from the service for the second offense.
Act shall prescribe in twenty years." RA I 09 I 0 lapsed into law on 2 I July 20 I 6 without the
signature of the President in accordance with Section 27( 1), Article VI of the Constitution.
The offense of failure to file the SALN prescribes in 20 years, as However, for offenses committed prior to 2 I July 20 I 6, the I 5-year prescriptive period under the
provided under Section 11 19 of RA 3019. However, Section 11 of RA 3019 law prior to the amendment applies. (See Amar v. Odiaman, I 09 Phil. 68 I [I 960]; Quetuliu v. De
la Cuesta, 130 Phil. 494 [I 9681; Ki am co v. Court ofAppeals, 286 Phil. 260 [I 992]).
AN ACT TO ESTABLISH PER !ODS OF PRESCRIPTION FOR VIOLATIONS PENALIZED BY
18
Amendment to the Review and Compliance Procedure in the Filing and Submission of the SPECIAL LAWS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES, AND TO PROVIDE WHEN
Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial PRESCRIPTION SHALL BEGIN TO RUN.
21
Connections (CSC Resolution No. 060231 dated 1 February 2006). 484 Phil. 53 (2004).
22
19
Section 11 of RA 3019, as amended by RA 10910, states that "All offenses punishable under this Id. at 60-61.
Dissenting Opinion 13 G.R. No. 237428 Dissenting Opinion 14 G.R. No. 237428

representing the Republic, must present evidence to prove its allegation that
IV. Effect of Certification by Custodian of SALN respondent repeatedly failed to comply with the constitutional and statutory
requirement of filing the SALN.
Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that the "[b]urden
of proof (onus probandi) is the duty of a party to present evidence on the There is no dispute that respondent was a faculty member of the UP
facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of College of Law from 1986 to 2006. 27 Being a government employee at the
evidence required by law." In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the time, respondent was required to file the SALN annually.
plaintiff, who is required to establish his case by a preponderance of
evidence. 23 In administrative cases, the burden of proof lies with the The OSG claims that respondent "deliberately failed to file her SALN
complainant, who is required to prove his case by substantial evidence. 24 with her [government] employer, UP, eleven times in her twenty years as a
29
Once the plaintiff or complainant has established his case, by prima facie law professor." 28 To prove its claim, the OSG submitted a Certification
evidence, the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant or respondent, who, from the UP HRDO which stated that "based on the 201 files of [respondent]
in turn, has the burden to establish his defense. 25 under the custody of the Information Management Section of the [UP
HRDO], it was found that between the period 2000-2009 the SALN
Primafacie evidence is defined as: submission on file is as of December 31, 2002." Further, in a Letter
addressed to the OSG dated 6 March 2018, UP HRDO Director Escoto
Evidence good and sufficient on its face. Such evidence as, in the stated that only the SALNs of respondent for the years 1985, 1990, 1991,
judgment of the law, is sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 2002 were found in the UP HRDO
chain of facts constituting the party's claim or defense, and which if not
records. 30 The OSG likewise submitted a Certification from the Office of the
rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient. Evidence which, if
unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain a judgment in Ombudsman Central Records Division which stated that "there is no SALN
favor of the issue it supports, but which may be contradicted by other filed by MS. MARIA LOURDES A. SERENO for calendar years 1999 to
evidence. 26 (Emphasis supplied) 2009 except SALN ending December 1998 xx x." 31

In cases involving the requirement of filing the SALN, a certification The submission by the OSG of the UP HRDO Certification and Letter
duly issued by the official custodian that no SALN of a gove1nment and the Ombudsman Certification constitutes prima facie proof of
employee is on file in the custodian's office constitutes prima facie proof of respondent's non-filing of her SALNs for a certain number of years during
non-filing of the SALN. Such certification satisfies the burden of proof, and her employment at the UP College of Law. In other words, the OSG
shifts the burden of evidence to the government employee to prove successfully satisfied the burden of proof by submitting the UP HRDO and
otherwise. The government employee must present countervailing evidence Ombudsman Certifications which constituted prima facie evidence that
to shift back the burden of evidence. In the absence of countervailing respondent did not file her SALNs for the years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1992,
evidence, the government employee can be held liable for non-filing of the 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, during which respondent
SALN on the basis of the certification by the official custodian that no was employed as a UP College of Law Professor. 32 Thus, if uncontradicted,
SALN is on file. this prima facie evidence is considered sufficient to sustain respondent's
liability for non-filing of her SALNs. It is therefore incumbent upon
respondent to rebut and overthrow the OSG's prima facie evidence by
V. Respondent Chief Justice Sereno 's Situation
presenting her own evidence to the contrary. In short, the burden of evidence
now shifted to respondent to disprove the OSG's evidence against her.
A. Effect of Certification of UP HRDO
In her 23 July 2012 letter to the JBC, respondent stated:
In the present case, the burden of proof lies with the Republic which is
the party that initiated the present quo warranto petition. Thus, the OSG, As I had noted in my Personal Data Sheet, after my resignation from

27
23
Section I, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court; Republic of the Philippines v. De Borja, G. R. No. Respondent's Memorandum, p. 6.
28
187448, 9 January 2017; Sps. De Leon v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, 721 Phil. 839(2013). Petitioner's Memorandum, p. 50.
29
24
Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court; Concerned Citizen v. Divina, 676 Phil. 166, 176 (2011 ), Petitioner's Memorandum, Annex "B."
JO
Montemayor v. Bundalian, 453 Phil. 158, 167 (2003). Petitioner's Memorandum, Annex "O."
11
25
Sps. De Leon v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, 721 Phil. 839(2013). Petitioner's Memorandum, Annex "C."
26
Wa-acon v. People, 539 Phil. 485, 494 (2006), citing H. Black, et al., BLACK'S LAW Respondent furnished the Court a photocopy of her 1989 SALN but it was not a certified true
DICTIONARY 1190 (6th ed., 1990). copy.
 Dissenting Opinion 15 G.R. No. 237428 Dissenting Opinion 16 G.R. No. 237428

government service in 2006, as a professor at the University of the Clearly, respondent failed to adduce satisfactory evidence to rebut and
Philippines, I became a full-time private practitioner. Hence, when I was overthrow the OSG's prima facie evidence of her failure to file her SALNs
nominated for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in for several years while she was teaching in the UP College of Law.
2010, my nomination was considered as that of a private practitioner, and
not as a government employee. Thus, the requirements imposed on me in
Respondent conveniently alleges that she religiously filed her SALNs
connection with the consideration of my name were those imposed on without presenting any evidence to prove such allegation. Suffice to state,
nominees from the private sector, and my earlier-terminated government mere allegation is not proof. 35 This means that the OSG's prima facie
service, did not control nor dominate the kind of requirements imposed on evidence establishing respondent's repeated failure to file her SALNs
me. remains uncontradicted, and thus, respondent can be held liable for her
repeated non-filing of SALNs while she was employed as a UP College of
Considering that most of my government records in the academe are
more than fifteen years old, it is reasonable to consider it infeasible to
Law Professor.
retrieve all of those files.

In any case, the University of the Philippines has already cleared me B. Effect of Respondent's Failure to File SALN within 30 days from
of all academic/administrative responsibilities, money and property Assuming Office
accountabilities and from administrative charges as of 01 June 2006. Since
it is the ministerial duty of the Head of the Office to ensure that the SALNs
of its personnel are properly filed and accomplished (CSC Resolution No.
In her Memorandum, respondent manifested that the SALN she filed
060231 dated 01 February 2006 and CSC Memorandum Circular No. 10- with the JBC when she was applying as an Associate Justice of the Supreme
2006 dated 17 April 2006), this clearance can be taken as an assurance that Court was "not [the] required SALN as it is understood in law. x x x.
my previous government employer considered the SALN requirements to Rather, it was a measuring tool which happened to be on a SALN form,
have been met. A copy of the Clearance dated 19 September 2011 issued by requested by the JBC to test the veracity of her declarations in her ITRs." 36
the University of the Philippines is hereby attached. Respondent testified during the Oral Arguments, thus:
x x x. Hence, in compliance with the documentary requirements for
JUSTICE DE CASTRO:
my candidacy as Chief Justice, I submitted only the SALNs from end of
Okay. So, let's go now with the SALN that you filed which so far
2009 up to 31 December 2011, since I am considered to have been returned
has been located and particularly those which you submitted to the Judicial
to public office and rendered government service anew from the time of my
and Bar Council. When you applied for Associate Justice of the Supreme
appointment as Associate Justice on 16 August 2010.
Court, you were required to submit a Sworn Statement of Assets and
Liabilities, and that was in 2010. So, you submitted a Statement of Assets
xx x x 33
and Liabilities which you signed in July 27, 2010 and you wrote a letter
stating that yesterday, you wrote a letter to the JBC, yesterday, that was,
Based on this letter, respondent made it appear that she had filed her your letter is dated, was dated July 28. Yesterday, you submitted your
SALNs with the UP HRDO during her employment as a UP College of Law Statement of Assets and Liabilities as of 2006. You deliberately did not use
Professor but she could no longer find her personal copies of her SALNs. the word Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities because what you
submitted is a Statement of Assets and Liabilities for 2006 which was not
Respondent manifested to this Court in her Memorandum that she
signed, which was not notarized. So, you omitted the word "Sworn," you
"religiously filed her SALNs." 34 If indeed she had religiously filed her agree to that or you want to see the document?
SALNs but her personal copies were lost, she could easily have secured a
Certification from the UP HRDO that she had filed her SALNs. The CHIEF JUSTICE SERENO:
requirement to submit SALNs was announced through advertisement in a The JBC did not require from me my 2006 SALN. They requested
newspaper by the JBC. Respondent never secured a certification from the me to give my Statement of Assets regardless of whether it's sworn or not
as of the time of application. Now, the form there, the only form I used
UP HRDO as to her SALNs on file in that office. Her failure to secure such
there was a downloadable form as of 2006 but if you can look at the
certification exposes as a misrepresentation her claim that she could not find signature portion, it is 2010. So, it is a metric tool that was used by the
her SALNs. For how could she find her personal copies of her SALNs when .TBC and they explained it to me intimately that it had to do with the
there is no record that she filed her SALNs for the years 1986, 1987, 1988, measurement of the banks, deposits and the income tax return. So, that
1992, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 with the UP HRDO? SALN is not the SALN contemplated by law but it is another

J)
Brodeth v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 197849, 29 November 2017; Dr. De Jesus v.
Guerrero 1/1, 614 Phil. 520, 529 (2009); fl fl Soliven Realty Corp. v. Ong, 490 Phil. 229, 237
33
Respondent's Memorandum, Annex" 11." (2005), citing Workers ofAntique Electric Coop., Inc. v. NLRC, 388 Phil. 847 (2000).
16
34
Respondent's Memorandum, p. 8. Respondent's Memorandum, p. 11.
 Dissenting Opinion 17 G.R. No. 237428 Dissenting Opinion 18 G.R. No. 237428

measurement tool of the JBC. of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and
family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next
JUSTICE DE CASTRO: preceding calendar year: Provided, That the public officers assuming
Will you explain why you dated, why you mentioned in that ... office less than two months before the end of the calendar year, may file
their first statement on or before the fifteenth day of April following the
CHIEF JUSTICE SERENO: close of the said calendar year. (Emphasis supplied)
I came from the private sector, Justice De Castro, so, it is a 2010
Statement of Assets unswom during the time of my application. It is not
that specified under the ... SALN law. Section 8, RA 6713

xx xx Statements and Disclosure - Public officials and employees have an

obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath and the
It's not the SALN required by law. I had to find a form I could public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and
easily file because I was being asked to immediately send it by fax. So, the financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of
only downloadable form was what was available in the website. I unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their
downloaded it, I filled it up, I sent it. 37 (Emphasis supplied) households.

xx xx
True, the SALN form referred to by respondent when she applied for
the Associate Justice post in 2010 is not the SALN form specified by and The documents must be filed:
required under the law. It has been an accepted practice of the JBC to allow (a) within thirty (30) days after assumption of office;
applicants for judicial positions from the private sector to accomplish and (b) on or before April 30, of every year thereafter; and
submit such SALN as part of the documentary requirements. Accordingly, (c) within thirty (30) days after separation from the service.
there was nothing irregular attending respondent's submission to the JBC of
All public officials and employees required under this section to file the
her unsworn SALN on 27 July 2010 when she was applying for the aforestated documents shall also execute, within thirty (30) days from the
Associate Justice position. date of their assumption of office, the necessary authority in favor of the
Ombudsman to obtain from all appropriate government agencies,
However, when respondent was appointed as Associate Justice of the including the Bureau of Internal Revenue, such documents as may show
Supreme Court and assumed such position on 16 August 2010, respondent their assets, liabilities, net worth, and also their business interests and
financial connections in previous years, including, if possible, the year
was duty-bound to submit a SALN in the prescribed form and within the
when they first assumed any office in the Government. (Emphasis
period specifically required by the Constitution, law, and rules. supplied)

Again, the following are the relevant provisions on SALN filing: Administrative Code of 1987, Book 1, Chapter 9, Section 34

Section 17, Article XI of the Constitution 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
A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as his assets, liabilities, and net worth. (Emphasis supplied)
often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under
oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. (Emphasis supplied) CSC Rules

Section 7, RA 3019 Section 1. Filing and Submission of SALN on Time and to the
Proper Official
Section 7. Statement of assets and liabilities. - Every public officer,
within thirty days after assuming office, thereafter, on or before the a. All public officials and employees, except those who serve in an
fifteenth day of April following the close of every calendar year, as well as official honorary capacity, without service credit or pay, temporary
upon the expiration of his term of office, or upon his resignation or laborers and casual or temporary and contractual workers, shall file under
separation from office, shall prepare and file with the office of the oath their SALNs and Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial
corresponding Department Head, or in the case of a Head of department or Connections with their respective Chief or Head of the
Chief of an independent office, with the Office of the President, a true, Personnel/Administrative Division or Unit/Human Resource Management
detailed sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement Office (HRMO), to wit:

1. Within thirty (30) days after assumption of office, statements of

17
TSN, JO April 2018, pp. 34-35.
v which must be reckoned as of his/her first day of service;
 Dissenting Opinion 19 G.R. No. 237428 Dissenting Opinion 20 G.R. No. 237428

2. On or before April 30 of every year thereafter, statements of which within thirty (30) days but look at the date of your Sworn Statement of
must be reckoned as of the end of the preceding year; and Assets and Liabilities, that is your Sworn Statement of Assets and
3. Within thirty (30) days after separation from the service, Liabilities, that is your Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities as of
statements of which must be reckoned as of his/her last day of December 31, 2009, when the law requires you to reckon your Statement of
office. Assets and Liabilities when you assumed office? So, it should have been
dated between, between August and September 2010, but no, you did not
b. Public officials and employees under temporary status are also do that. You submitted a sworn declaration of Assets and Liabilities dated
required to file under oath their SALNs and Disclosure of Business December 31, 2009, when you are no longer a government employee at that
Interests and Financial Connections in accordance with the guidelines time?
provided under these rules.
May I know your answer?
c. Public officials and employees are strictly required to fill in all
applicable information and/or make a true and detailed statement of their CHIEF JUSTICE SERENO:
SALNs. (Emphasis supplied) This is the entry SALN after having taken my oath and the
requirement is as of the end of the preceding year.
Since respondent took her oath and assumed her position as Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court on 16 August 2010, she was required to file JUSTICE DE CASTRO:
under oath her SALN within thirty (30) days after assumption of office, or No ...
until 15 September 2010, and the statements must be reckoned as of her CHIEF JUSTICE SERENO:
first day of service, pursuant to the relevant provisions on SALN filing. So, it must be as of end of December 2009 even if it is 2010.

However, respondent failed to file a SALN containing sworn JUSTICE DE CASTRO:

statements reckoned as of her first day of service within thirty (30) days No, it's, I read to you the law, I read to you the provision of law and
the rules, it says there, that when you assumed office, your SALN must be
after assuming office. While she allegedly submitted an "entry SALN" on
reckoned as of the date of your assumption to office. So, it cannot be
16 September 2010,38 it was unsubscribed 39 and the statements of her several months before because if it is several months before, from
assets, liabilities and net worth were reckoned as of 31 December 2009, December 31, 2009 up to September 2010, there could have been assets
and not as of her first day of service, or as of 16 August 2010. This is and liabilities between that period of time which cannot be found in your
clear from the following quoted portions of respondent's testimony during September 2010 SALN. There is a gap ...
the Oral Arguments, to wit:
xx xx
JUSTICE DE CASTRO:
CHIEF JUSTICE SERENO:
Okay, now, let's go to, so, after that you were appointed Associate
Your Honor, the law only says that it must be within thirty (30) days
Justice, after that you were appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme
after assumption of office. Nowhere can I say that it must be the Statement
Court, and upon assumption within thirty (30) days, you should file a
of Assets within that month. So, it is not wrong for me to have even given
SALN as of the date of your assumption to office. As you mentioned in, as
government a better chance and better tools to assess whether I will be
you mentioned, you resigned on June 1si, 2006. So, you were no longer,
hiding any ill-gotten wealth because I'm giving the government even more
you were no longer a government official as of December 31, 2009, and
information than you are proposing. Because the law only says within
this is now no longer a printed date. The date depicts zero, nine (09) after
thirty (30) days, it doesn't say as of that date.
two zero (00) was handwritten, so that, when you assumed office in August
of 2010, and you need to follow the law to require, which requires you to
xx xx
file a SALN within thirty (30) days from your assumption to duty, you filed
your SALN, September 2010, okay? So, with respect to the date, that is
CHIEF JUSTICE SERENO:
Your Honor, my proposal is this. This is a unique reading by you of
38
Respondent's Memorandum, p. 111. Since the last day for filing her SALN was 15 September the IRR while I am reading the law itself. You know, in September, my
2010, the "entry SALN" filed by respondent was belatedly filed. husband and I would have already accumulated income from January 1 up
to September when I filed within the reglementary period. Within that
Respondent's 31 December 2009 SALN which is attached to petitioner's Memorandum shows that
it was received by the Supreme Court's Office of the Clerk of Court on 28 June 2012. On page period, we cannot measure our assets and liabilities accurately because of
111 of respondent's Memorandum, she stated that "[t]he 2009 SALN is an entry SALN which the the tax implication of those incomes that we have reviewed. That is why, in
Chief Justice originally filed on 16 September 2010, within thirty (30) days after her assumption fact, the mandatory requirement for annual filing of SALNs is after
of office as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. It was not 'belatedly filed.' The revised computation of taxes. What I have provided the government is, in fact, a
2009 SALN which has the annotation 'revised as of22 June 2012', is a revised version executed
better way of assessing because anyway, from , September 20 up to
in June 2012 to more accurately reflect the acquisition cost of certain assets declared in 20 IO."
39
Ponencia, pp. 7, 110; Petitioner's Annexes to the Memorandum, pp. 25-26. December 31, 2010, Justice De Castro, I filed again another SALN. So,
 Dissenting Opinion 21 G.R. No. 237428 Dissenting Opinion 22 G.R. No. 237428

there's even more data that government can mine to find out if I have previous failure to file her SALNs for several years while she was a UP
hidden anything. The law is clear, within thirty days, it does not say, ah, it College of Law Professor, her failure to file her SALN upon assuming office
does not say as of reckoned as of what date. So, I followed what has been
in 2010 as Associate Justice of this Court constitutes culpable violation of
government regulation, it was OAS of the Supreme Court, Atty. Vidal, who
said it must be as of end of December 2009. the Constitution, a violation committed while she was already serving as
an impeachable officer.
xx xx

CHIEF JUSTICE SERENO: VI. Jurisprudence on Failure to File SALN

August 16 . . . So, I assumed office, I entered into the functions of
my office, August, same day. How can I? We were preparing for the oral
arguments, then following day was the Hacienda Luisita, I have to have Respondent harps on the case of Concerned Taxpayer v. Doblada, Jr. 41
bank certifications of all my bank records. I have to force my husband to to justify her claim that she is not liable for non-filing of SALN since she
compute our estimated tax liabilities, I have to make a run down of all the religiously filed her SALNs while she was teaching in UP.
debts that are due me and have not been paid. I have to, at the same time,
find out if I owe anybody anything. And then if I have to find out that In Doblada, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued a
valuation of all my properties, how can you do that in a matter of three
weeks, Justice De Castro? This is the most absurd, oppressive
certification that Doblada had no SALNs on file for certain years, including
interpretation ever. What I am offering the government is a good database for 2000. Doblada claimed he filed all his SALNs through the Clerk of
from which to assess whether I'm violating the SALN law. I have end Court. Doblada presented a letter from the Clerk of Court certifying that the
2009, I have end 2010, government can run after me ifl have any ill-gotten latter transmitted to the OCA Doblada's SALN for 2000. The Clerk of Court
wealth. In the first place, the SolGen has not made any case that I have is tasked to forward all SALNs filed with his office to the OCA which is the
violated anything of any kind. custodian of SALNs for lower courts. The Clerk of Court merely collects
xx xx for the OCA. The Court held that the OCA certification is not conclusive,
and Doblada could not be held liable for non-filing of his SALNs.
JUSTICE DE CASTRO:
You are not required by law to submit a SALN as of December 31, In Doblada, the OCA certification satisfied the burden of proof that
2009, because you mentioned that from June 1, 2006 up to the time that Doblada did not file his SALNs for a number of years, and thus, the burden
you assumed office on August 2010, you were no longer in government. of evidence shifted to Doblada. However, the Clerk of Court letter, a
So, why is it that you have a SALN for December 31, 2009? What is that
for?
countervailing evidence submitted by Doblada, was sufficient to shift back
the burden of evidence because the Clerk of Court letter cast doubt on the
CHIEF JUSTICE SERENO: record keeping of the OCA insofar as Doblada's SALNs were concerned. In
Your Honor, if there had been any problem with my SALN, Chief sh011, the OCA Certification did not constitute conclusive evidence that
Justice Corona should have called my attention because he is the head of Doblada did not file his SALNs, precisely because it was discredited by the
the Judiciary. Under the procedures, he should have called my attention, Clerk of Court letter, and thus, Doblada could not be held liable for non-
"mali iyong entry SALN mo, bakit masyadong maaga? Bakit December
filing of his SALNs.
2009? Eh, ang reading ko ng batas, kung end 2009 pwede na iyon sa
entry SALN kasi iyon naman usually at iyon naman ang sinabi sa akin,
end 2009. Iyon ang hiningi talaga. 40 (Emphasis supplied) In the present case, the Doblada doctrine cannot apply because
respondent did not file any countervailing evidence to cast doubt on the
record keeping of the UP HRDO. Respondent should have presented a
The Constitution, law, and rules clearly require that the sworn certification from the Secretary of the UP College of Law that she submitted
entry SALN "must be reckoned as of his/her first day of service" and all her SALNs with the College Secretary during her entire employment with
must be filed "within thirty (30) days after assumption of office." the UP College of Law. The Secretary of the UP College of Law forwards to
Evidently, respondent failed to file under oath a SALN reckoned as of her the UP HRDO whatever SALNs are submitted to the Secretary. What the
first day of service, or as of 16 August 2010, within the prescribed period of UP HRDO has on file are only the 1985, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995,
thirty (30) days after her assumption of office. In other words, respondent 1996, 1997, and 2002 SALNs of respondent. Respondent failed to shift the
failed to file the required SALN upon her assumption to office, which is a burden of evidence as to her failure to file her 1986, 1987, 1988, 1992, 1999,
clear violation of Section 17, Article XI of the Constitution. In light of her 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 SALNs.

40 41
TSN, I 0 April 2018, pp. 42-46, 68. 498 Phil. 395 (2005).
Dissenting Opinion 23 G.R. No. 237428 Dissenting Opinion 24 G.R. No. 237428

To repeat, Doblada is inapplicable here since respondent failed to The provision mandating removal only by impeachment is "the
present any certification, which could attest clearly that she submitted her Constitution's strongest guarantee of security of tenure. The guarantee
SALNs with the UP College of Law Secretary, who collects the SALNs and effectively blocks the use of other legal ways of ousting an officer." 45
forwards the same to the UP HRDO. Thus, in Jn re First Jndorsement from Hon. Gonzales ,46 the argument that a
sitting member of this Court may be subjected to disbarment proceedings,
which could possibly result in the sitting Justice being disbarred and thus not
VIL Jurisdiction to Remove an Impeachable Officer qualified for the position, was rejected by this Court, thus:

x x x. A public officer who under the Constitution is required to be

Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution provides: 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,
SECTION 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of cannot be charged with disbarment during the incumbency of such public
the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and officer. Further, such public officer, during his incumbency, cannot be
the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan or any other court with any
conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft offence which carries with it the penalty of removal from office, or any
and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other penalty service of which would amount to removal from office.
public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)
law, but not by impeachment.
The Court explained the important underlying reason for this rule m the
According to the ponente, "the language of Section 2, Article XI of same case of Jn re First Jndorsementfrom Hon. Gonzales, to wit:
the Constitution does not foreclose a quo warranto action against
impeachable officers. x x x. To construe Section 2, Article XI of the The above rule rests on the fundamental principles of judicial
Constitution as proscribing a quo warranto petition is to deprive the State of independence and separation of powers. The rule is important because
a remedy to correct a 'public wrong' arising from defective or void judicial independence is important. Without the protection of this rule,
appointments." 42 Members of the Supreme Court would be vulnerable to all manners 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
The ponente posits that "while impeachment concerns actions that seek to affect the exercise of judicial authority by the Court. 47
make the officer unfit to continue exercising his or her office, quo warranto
involves matters that render him or her ineligible to hold the position to
begin with. " 43 A s1ttmg impeachable officer can be removed from office only
through impeachment by Congress. As I have stated in a Dissenting
This is erroneous. Opinion, 48 the sole disciplining authority of all impeachable officers,
including members of this Court, is Congress.
Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution expressly provides the mode
of removal from office of "the President, the Vice-President, the Members Under the Constitution, the sole disciplining authority of all
of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and impeachable officers, including Justices of this Court, is Congress.
the Ombudsman." Removal from office of these public officers shall only Section 3(1), Article XI of the Constitution provides that, "The House of
be by impeachment, and not through any other mode. In Lecaroz v. Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of
impeachment." Likewise, Section 3(6) of the same Article provides that,
Sandiganbayan, the Court held:
"The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide cases of
impeachment." These provisions constitute Congress as the exclusive
x x x [T)he above provision proscribes removal from office of the
authority to discipline all impeachable officers for any impeachable
aforementioned constitutional officers by any other method;
offense, including "betrayal of public trust," a "catchall phrase" to
otherwise, to allow a public officer who may be removed solely by
cover any misconduct involving breach of public trust by an
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. 44 (Boldfacing and
45
underscoring supplied) J. Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary 1111 (2003
Edition).
46
In re First Indorsement.fi-om Hon. Gonzales, 243 Phil. 167, I 70 (I 988).
47
42
Ponencia, pp. 58, 61. Id. at 172.
48
43
Ponencia, pp. 63-64. In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, etc., against Assoc. Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo,
44
213 Phil. 288, 294 (1984 ). 657 Phil. 13, 80-81 (2011).
Dissenting Opinion 25 G.R. No. 237428 Dissenting Opinion 26 G.R. No. 237428

impeachable officer. (Emphasis supplied) impeachable officers under the Constitution. Any decision by this Court
in an administrative case clearing a sitting Justice of an impeachable
offense is void for want of jurisdiction and for violation of an express
The House impeaches, and the Senate convicts. This is the only
provision of the Constitution.
method allowed under the Constitution to remove a member of this Court.
To allow any other method is to re-write the Constitution. To permit this quo Such a decision will put this Court on a collision course with
warranto petition to remove an incumbent member of this Court is to violate Congress if subsequently an impeachment complaint for plagiarism is
the Constitution. filed with Congress against the sitting Justice. Incidentally, an
impeachment complaint has already been filed in the House of
Representatives involving the same complaint subject of this
The grounds for impeachment are: culpable violation of the
administrative case. If the House of Representatives decides to take
Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, and cognizance of the complaint and initiates an impeachment based on the
betrayal of public trust. same administrative complaint that this Court had already dismissed as
baseless, then this Court would have created a constitutional crisis that
The catch-all phrase "betrayal of public trust" covers every could only weaken the public's faith in the primacy of the Constitution.
conceivable misconduct by an impeachable officer, whether committed
while in government service before the appointment, at the time of
Thus, this Court should treat the present quo warranto petition as an
application for the office, or after appointment to office. Any
administrative investigation by this Court of one of its members. The
misrepresentation on material matters at the time of application for
resolution of this Court should be to refer its findings and recommendation
office is an integrity issue subsumed under the phrase "betrayal of
against respondent to Congress.
public trust."
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the petition and to refer to the
As I pointed out earlier, the repeated failure to file SALNs constitutes
Congress of the Philippines for possible inclusion of the acts constituting
culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust, grounds
culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust, as found
for removing an impeachable officer. While the failure to file SALN s may
in the present case, in the ongoing impeachment proceedings against
also raise questions on the integrity, and thus the qualification, of an
respondent Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno.
applicant for Justice of the Supreme Court, the relevant applicable violation,
for purposes of removing such impeachable officer once already in office, is
culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust. Only
Congress, through the impeachment process, can remove an impeachable
officer on these grounds.

If a court finds that an impeachable officer has committed an

impeachable act, the court should refer the matter to Congress, for Congress
to exercise its exclusive mandate to remove from office impeachable
Associate Justice
officers. No court, not even this Court, can assume the exclusive mandate of
Congress to remove impeachable officers from office. As I have expressed
in a Dissenting Opinion: 49

This Court may conduct an investigation of an administrative

complaint against a sitting Justice to determine if there is basis in
recommending to the House of Representatives the initiation of an
impeachment complaint against the sitting Justice. This Court may also
conduct an investigation of an administrative complaint against a sitting
Justice to determine if the complaint constitutes contempt of this Court.
However, this Court has no power to decide on the guilt or innocence of a
sitting Justice in the administrative complaint because such act is a
usurpation of the exclusive disciplinary power of Congress over

49
Id. at 83-84.