REPUBLIC V. MARIA LOURDES P. A.
SERENO
G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018
Ponente: Tijam, J.
PROBLEM: On July 2010, Respondent submitted her application for the position of
Associate Justice of the SC. Despite the span of 20 years of employment with UP from 1986 to
2006 and despite having been employed as legal counsel of various government agencies from
2003 to 2009, records from the UP HRDO, Office of the Ombudsman, and the Office of
Recruitment Selection and Nomination (ORSN) of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) show
that the only SALN available on record and filed by Respondent were those for the years 1985,
1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2002, or only 11 out of 25 SALNs
that ought to have been filed. No SALNs were filed from 2003 to 2006 when she was
employed as legal counsel for the Republic. Neither was a SALN filed when she resigned from
U.P. College of Law as of 1 June 2006 and when she supposedly re-entered government
service as of 16 August 2010. Respondent was appointed by President Benigno Aquino III on
25 August 2012. Five years later, an impeachment complaint was filed by Atty. Larry Gadon
with the House Committee of Justice. Included in the complaint was the allegation that
Respondent failed to make a truthful statements of her SALNs. Such complaint filed in the
House spawned a letter dated 21 February 2018 of Atty. Eligio Mallari to the OSG requesting
the latter to initiate a quo warranto proceeding against respondent. Can Sereno, who is an
impeachable officer, can be the respondent in a quo warranto proceeding?
ANSWER: Yes, Sereno, who is an impeachable officer, can be the respondent in a quo
warranto proceeding.
Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution allows the institution of a quo warranto action against
an impeachable officer. A quo warranto petition is predicated on grounds distinct from those of
impeachment. The former questions the validity of a public officer’s appointment while the
latter indicts him for the so-called impeachable offenses without questioning his title to the
office he holds.
In this case, while respondent Sereno is an impeachable officer, the quo warranto is a proper
remedy to remove her from her office because the petition is predicated on the validity of her
appointment as Chief Justice, that is, she failed to satisfy the requisite proof of integrity when
she applied for the position of Chief Justice by failing to submit the required SALNs from
1985 to 2006.
Hence, Sereno, who is an impeachable officer, can be the respondent in a quo
warranto proceeding.
