G.R. NO.

237428

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C.

CALIDA, Petitioner

vs.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO, Respondent

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

The Republic cites respondent’s gross misrepresentation in stating that her reason for non-
submission of SALNs was because she could no longer retrieve all of such SALNs. According to the
Republic, respondent’s allegation seems to imply that SALNs when the certifications from U.P. and
the Ombudsman state otherwise.

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

RESPONDENT maintains that whether respondent was person of “proven integrity” when she applied
for the position of Chief Justice is political question outside the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
which only JBC and the President as the appointing authority could determine. She avers that the
application of the political question doctrine is not confined to the President or Congress, as the
Republic supposedly argues, but extends to other government departments or officers exercising
discretionary powers, such as the JBC which uses its wisdom and discretion in determining whether
an applicant to the Judiciary is person of “proven” integrity.

ISSUE:

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

a. Whether the determination of candidate’s eligibility for nomination is the sole and exclusive
function of the JBC and whether such determination partakes of the character of political
question outside the Court’s supervisory and review powers;
b. Whether respondent failed to file her SALNs as mandated by the Constitution and required
by the law and its implementing rules and regulations; and if so, whether the failure to file
SALNs voids the nomination and appointment of respondent as Chief Justice;
c. Whether respondent failed to comply with the submission of SALNs as required by the
JBC; and if so, whether the failure to submit SALNs to the JBC voids the nomination and
appointment of respondent as Chief Justice;
d. In case of finding that respondent is ineligible to hold the position of Chief Justice, whether
the subsequent nomination by the JBC and the appointment by the President cured such
ineligibility.
RULING:

1. Respondent is INELIGIBLE as Candidate and Nominee for the Position of Chief Justice.

a. NO. Qualifications under the Constitution cannot be waived or bargained away by

the JBC

In interpreting the power of the Court vis-à-vis the power of the JBC, it is consistently held
that the Court’s supervisory power consists of seeing to it that the JBC complies with its
own rules and procedures. Furthermore, while a certain leeway must be given to the JBC in
screening aspiring magistrates, the same does not give it an unbridled discretion to ignore
Constitutional and legal requirements. The question of whether or not a nominee
possesses the requisite qualifications is determined based on facts and therefore does not
depend on, nor call for, the exercise of discretion on the part of the nominating body,
Proceeding from this, qualifications under the Constitution cannot be waived or bargained
away by the JBC – one such qualification is the requirement of possession of proven
integrity required not only in the Constitution, but also mentioned in administrative cases, in
the Canons of the New Code of Judicial Conduct as a continuing requirement, the Code of
Professional Integrity, and in the JBC009 Rules.

b. YES. Compliance with the Constitutional and statutory requirement of filing of SALN
intimately relates to person’s integrity.

Compliance with the Constitutional and statutory requirement of filing of SALN intimately
relates to a person’s integrity. Contrary to Respondent’s postulation that filing of SALN
bears no relation to the requirement of integrity, the filing of SALN itself is a Constitutional
and statutory requirement, under Section 17, Article XI of the Constitution, R.A. No. 3019,
and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Faithful
compliance with the requirement of the filing of SALN is rendered even more exacting when
the public official concerned is a member of the Judiciary.

Compliance with the SALN requirement indubitably reflects on a person’s integrity. To be

proven integrity, as required by qualifications under the Constitution, means that the
applicant must have established a steadfast adherence to moral and ethical principles. In
this line, failure to file the SALN is clearly a violation of the law. The offense is penal in
character and is clear breach of the ethical standards set for public officials and employees.
It disregards the requirement of transparency as a deterrent to graft and corruption. For
these reasons, a public official who has failed to comply with the requirement of filing the
SALN cannot be said to be of proven integrity and the Court may consider him/her
disqualified from holding public office. Respondent ‘s argument that failure to file SALN
does not negate integrity does not persuade. Whether or not Respondent accumulated
unexplained wealth is not in issue at this time, but whether she, in the first place, complied
with the mandatory requirement of filing of SALNs.

Respondent chronically failed to file her SALNs and thus violated the Constitution, the law
and the Code of Judicial Conduct. A member of Judiciary who commits such violations
cannot be deemed to be a person proven integrity. Respondent could have easily dispelled
doubts as to the filing or non-filing of the unaccounted SALNs by presenting them before
the Court. Yet, Respondent opted to withhold such information or such evidence, if at all,
for no clear reason. Her defences do not lie:
1. The Doblada doctrine does not persuade because in that Doblada was able to present
contrary proof that the missing SALNs were, in fact, transmitted to the OCA, thus
rendering inaccurate the OCA report that she did not file SALNs for a number of years,
as opposed to the present case where no proof of existence and filing were presented;
2. Being on leave from government service is not qualified to separation form service such
that she was still required to submit SALNs during her leave;
3. While Respondent is not required by law to keep a record of her SALNs, logic dictates
that she should have obtained a certification to attest to the fact of filing;
 4. That UP HRDO never asked Respondent to comply with the SALN laws holds no water
as the duty to comply with such is incumbent with the Respondent, and because there
was no duty for the UP HRDO to order compliance under the rules implemented at the
time;
5. That Respondent’s compliance with the SALN requirement was reflect on the matrix of
requirements and shortlist prepared by the JBC is dispelled by the fact that the
appointment goes into her qualifications which were mistakenly believed to be present,
and that she should have been disqualified at the outset.

Respondent failed to properly and promptly file her SALNs, again in violation of the Constitutional and
statutory requirements. The SALNs filed by Respondent covering her years of government service in
U.P. appear to have been executed and filed under suspicious circumstances; her SALNs filed with
the UPHRDO were either belatedly filed or belatedly notarized, when SALNs filed as Chief Justice
were also attended by irregularities. This puts in a question the truthfulness of such SALNs, and
would amount of dishonesty if attended by malicious intent to conceal the truth or make false
statements.

c. YES.

The JBC required the submission of at least ten SALNs from those applicants who are incumbent
Associate Justices, absent which, the applicant ought not to have been interviewed, much less been
considered for nomination. The established and undisputed fact is Respondent failed to submit the
required number of SALNs in violation of the rules set by the JBC itself during the process of
nomination. The JBC determined that she did not submit her SALNs from 1986 to 2006 and that, as
remarked by Senator Escudero, the filing thereof during those years was already required. There was
no indication that the JBC deemed the three SALNs for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 submitted by
Respondent for her 20 years as a professor in the U.P. College of Law. In the end, it appears that the
JBC En Banc decided to require only the submission of the past ten SALNs or from 2001-2011, for
applicants to the Chief Justice position. It is clear that the JBC En Banc did not do away the
requirement of submission of the SALNs for the immediately preceding 10 years instead of all SALNs,
was deemed sufficient. Records clearly show that the only remaining applicant-incumbent Justice
who was not determined by the JBC En Banc to have substantially complied was Respondent, who
submitted only three SALNs (2009, 2010 and 2011) even after extensions of the deadline for the
submission to do so. Her justifications do not persuade. Contrary to her argument that the SALNs are
old and are infeasible to retrieve, the Republic was able to retrieve some of the SALNs dating back
1985. Furthermore, Respondent sought special treatment as having complied with the submission of
the SALN by submitting a Certificate of Clearance issued by the U.P. HRDO. This clearance,
however, hardly suffice as a substitute for SALNs. Respondent curiously failed to mention that she, in
fact, did not file several SALNs during the course of her employment in U.P. Such failure to disclose a
material fact and the concealment thereof from the JBC betrays any claim of integrity especially from
a Member of Supreme Court. For these reasons, the JBC should no longer have considered
Respondent for interview as it already required the submission of, at least, the SALNs corresponding
to the immediately preceding 10 years up to December 31, 2011.

Respondent’s failure to submit to the JBC her SALNs for several years means that her integrity was
not established at the time of her application. Contrary to Respondent’s argument that failure to
submit her SALNs to the JBC is not cause for disqualification, the requirement to submit SALNs,
along with the waiver of bank deposits, is not an empty requirement that may easily be dispensed
with, but was placed by the JBC to carry on its mandate of recommending only applicants of high
standards and who would be unsusceptible to impeachment attacks due to inaccuracies in SALNs.
Without 9 submission of such requirement, the JBC and the public are without opportunity to measure
the candidate’s fitness or propensity to commit corruption or dishonesty. Respondent’s failure to
submit her SALNs to the JBC means that she was not able to prove her integrity at the time of her
application as Chief Justice.
 d. NO. Respondent’s ineligibility for lack of proven integrity cannot be cured by her
nomination and subsequent appointment as Chief Justice.

As the qualification of proven integrity goes into the barest standards set forth under the Constitution
to qualify as a Member of the Court, the subsequent nomination and appointment to the position will
not qualify an otherwise excluded candidate. In other words, the inclusion of Respondent in the
shortlist of nominees submitted to the President cannot override the minimum Constitutional
qualifications. The Court has ample jurisdiction to void the JBC nomination without the necessity of
impleading the JBC as the Court can take judicial notice of the explanations from the JBC members
and the Office of the Executive Officer as regards the circumstances relative to the selection and
nomination of Respondent submitted to this Court. Neither will the President’s act of appointment
cause to qualify Respondent. The action of the JBC, particularly that of the Secretary of Justice as ex-
officio member, is reflective of the action of the President. Such as when the JBC mistakenly or
wrongfully accepted and nominated Respondent, the President, through subsequent act appointing
Respondent cannot have any curative effect. While the Court surrenders discretionary appointing
power to the President, the exercise of such discretion is subject to the non-negotiable requirements
that the appointee is qualified and all other legal requirements are satisfied, in the absence of which,
the appointment is susceptible to attack. The Court also took into account, while conceding that the
petition is not an administrative case or an inquiry into tax evasion against her, that Respondent’s
disposition to commit deliberate acts and omissions demonstrating dishonesty and lack of
fourthrightness are discordant with any claim of integrity.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Quo warranto is GRANTED. Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno
is found DISQUALIFIED from and is hereby adjudged GUILTY of UNLAWFULLY HOLDING and
EXERCISING the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE. Accordingly, Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A.
Sereno is OUSTED and EXCLUDED therefrom.