Quo Warranto

A legal proceeding during which an individual's right to hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged.
In old English practice, the writ of quo warranto—an order issued by authority of the king—
was one of the most ancient andimportant writs. It has not, however, been used for centuries, since the procedure and eff
ect of the judgment were soimpractical.
Currently the former procedure has been replaced by an information in the nature of a quo warranto, an extraordinaryrem
edy by which a prosecuting attorney, who represents the public at large, challenges someone who has usurped a publicoff
ice or someone who, through abuse or neglect, has forfeited an office to which she was entitled. In spite of the fact that th
eremedy of quo warranto is pursued by a prosecuting attorney in a majority of jurisdictions, it is ordinarily regarded as a ci
vilrather than criminal action. Quo warranto is often the only proper legal remedy; however, the legislature can enact legisl
ationor provide other forms of relief.
Statutes describing quo warranto usually indicate where it is appropriate. Ordinarily it is proper to try the issue of whether
apublic office or authority is being abused. For example, it might be used to challenge the Unauthorized
Practice of aprofession, such as law or medicine. In such situations, the challenge is an assertion that the defendant is no
t qualified tohold the position she claims—a medical doctor, for example.
In some quo warranto proceedings, the issue is whether the defendant is entitled to hold the office he claims, or to exercis
ethe authority he presumes to have from the government. In addition, proceedings have challenged the right to the positio
n ofcounty commissioner, treasurer, school board member, district attorney, judge, or tax commissioner. In certain jurisdic
tions,quo warranto is a proper proceeding to challenge individuals who are acting as officers or directors of business corp
orations.
A prosecuting attorney ordinarily commences quo warranto proceedings; however, a statute may authorize a private pers
onto do so without the consent of the prosecutor. Unless otherwise provided by statute, a court permits the filing of aninfor
mation in the nature of quo warranto after an exercise of sound discretion, since quo warranto is an extraordinaryexercise
of power and is not to be invoked lightly. Quo warranto is not a right available merely because the appropriate legaldocum
ents are filed. Valid reason must be indicated to justify governmental interference with the individual holding thechallenged
office, privilege, or license.

(kwoh wahr-rahn-
toe) n. the name for a writ (order) used to challenge another's right to either public or corporate office orchallenge the legal
ity of a corporation to its charter (articles).
Impeachable offenses

The Constitution limits the offenses to the following: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.

In the 1935 and 1973 constitution, betrayal of public trust was not an impeachable offense.

Culpable violation of the constitution

For purposes of impeachment, "culpable violation of the Constitution" is defined as "the deliberate and wrongful breach
of the Constitution." Further, "Violation of the Constitution made unintentionally, in good faith, and mere mistakes in
the proper construction of the Constitution, do not constitute an impeachable offense."

Treason

According to the Revised Penal Code, treason is defined as "Any Filipino citizen who levies war against the Philippines or
adheres to her enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere."

Bribery

The Revised Penal Code defines bribery in two forms:

 Direct bribery is "committed by any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in
connection with the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present
received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another."

 Indirect bribery is "committed by a public officer when he accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office."

Graft and corruption

Any violation of the Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is an impeachable offense.

Other high crimes or betrayal of public trust

In Francisco Jr. vs. Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc., the Supreme
Court purposely refused to define the meaning of "other high crimes or betrayal of public trust," saying that it is "a non-
justiciable political question which is beyond the scope of its judicial power." However, the Court refuses to name which
agency can define it; the Court impliedly gives the power to the House of Representatives, which initiates all cases of
impeachment.

GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT

The grounds for impeachment are: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other
high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. These grounds are exclusive and offenses not falling within these parameters
shall not be sufficient for impeachment purposes.
IMPEACHABLE OFFICIALS

ARTICLE XI

ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people,
serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest
lives.

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, shall 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.

Section 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its
jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law.

Section 5. There is hereby created the independent Office of the Ombudsman, composed of the Ombudsman to be
known as Tanodbayan, one overall Deputy and at least one Deputy each for Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. A separate
Deputy for the military establishment may likewise be appointed.
Section 6. The officials and employees of the Office of the Ombudsman, other than the Deputies, shall be appointed by
the Ombudsman, according to the Civil Service Law.

Section 7. The existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter be known as the Office of the Special Prosecutor. It shall continue to
function and exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law, except those conferred on the Office of
the Ombudsman created under this Constitution.

Section 8. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines, and at the time of their
appointment, at least forty years old, of recognized probity and independence, and members of the Philippine Bar, and
must not have been candidates for any elective office in the immediately preceding election. The Ombudsman must
have, for ten years or more, been a judge or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.

During their tenure, they shall be subject to the same disqualifications and prohibitions as provided for in Section 2 of
Article IX-A of this Constitution.

Section 9. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least six nominees
prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council, and from a list of three nominees for every vacancy thereafter. Such
appointments shall require no confirmation. All vacancies shall be filled within three months after they occur.

Section 10. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall have the rank of Chairman and Members, respectively, of the
Constitutional Commissions, and they shall receive the same salary which shall not be decreased during their term of
office.

Section 11. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall serve for a term of seven years without reappointment. They shall
not be qualified to run for any office in the election immediately succeeding their cessation from office.

Section 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any
form or manner against public officials or employees of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the
complainants of the action taken and the result thereof.

Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties:

(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or
agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.

(2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee of the Government, or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as of any government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter,
to perform and expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in
the performance of duties.

(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or employee at fault, and recommend
his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.

(4) Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law, to
furnish it with copies of documents relating to contracts or transactions entered into by his office involving the
disbursement or use of public funds or properties, and report any irregularity to the Commission on Audit for
appropriate action.

(5) Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge of its responsibilities, and
to examine, if necessary, pertinent records and documents.
(6) Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant and with due prudence.

(7) Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in the Government and make
recommendations for their elimination and the observance of high standards of ethics and efficiency.

(8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions or duties as may be
provided by law.

Section 14. The Office of the Ombudsman shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Its approved annual appropriations shall be
automatically and regularly released.

Section 15. The right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, from them
or from their nominees or transferees, shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel.

Section 16. No loan, guaranty, or other form of financial accommodation for any business purpose may be granted,
directly or indirectly, by any government-owned or controlled bank or financial institution to the President, the Vice-
President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Commissions, the
Ombudsman, or to any firm or entity in which they have controlling interest, during their tenure.

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.

Section 18. Public officers and employees owe the State and this Constitution allegiance at all times and any public
officer or employee who seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the status of an immigrant of another country during
his tenure shall be dealt with by law.
What is in the Sereno impeachment complaint?

By: Oscar Franklin Tan- @inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 07:03 PM September 13, 2017

Respected opposition congressmen Akbayan Rep. Tom Villarin and Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman protest the impeachment
complaint by Atty. Lorenzo Gadon against Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno. They argue it cannot be sufficient in form
because it is based on newspaper clippings, the same argument used to dismiss the impeachment complaint by Rep.
Gary Alejano against Pres. Rodrigo Duterte.

This is not quite right.

First, many of Gadon’s allegations are not even supported by news clippings—these cite no basis at all. Some may be
accompanied by documents from the Supreme Court (SC) or other bodies, but these are mostly general regulations and
do not on face establish facts incriminating Sereno.

Second and more importantly, two of Gadon’s allegations that Sereno manipulated Judicial and Bar Council (JBC)
proceedings are supported by actual SC decisions. To emphasize, Gadon did not present sworn affidavits by SC justices.
Instead, he presented extremely serious accusations they wrote into actual SC decisions, which are a million times
weightier because they are part of our laws.

Below is a summary of Gadon’s charges cross-referencing the evidence cited, to allow you to judge the complaint for
yourself. The full complaints are available at www.facebook.com/OscarFranklinTan.

Tax/SALN evasion

Sereno earned US$745,000 from the government as legal fees for the PIATCO case. This amount was not reported in her
SALN or to the Bureau of Internal Revenue. (Source: Ninez Cacho-Olivares opinion column in Daily Tribune)

Further, Sereno “used public funds to finance her extravagant and lavish lifestyle” by having the SC purchase a 2017
Toyota Land Cruiser worth PHP5 million. She ordered its bullet-proofing but “withdrew when news of her impending
impeachment broke out.” (Source: none)

She travels with her “coterie of security” and two motorcycle escorts. She insists on flying herself, her security and “her
clique of relatively new hired lawyers” on business class for domestic and international travel, and gives herself and her
staff travel allowances from SC funds. (Source: none)

She stayed in the Presidential Villa of Shangri-la Boracay during a 2016 conference, allegedly worth PHP200,000 a night.
She holds meetings in 5-star hotels and clubs. (Source: none)

Blocking Jardeleza

As JBC Chair, Gadon accused, “Sereno persistently manipulates judicial appointments for personal and political reasons”
and “transformed the JBC into a mafia-like organization.” A 2015 Manila Times article accused her of pushing her
“Umbrella Boy” as Sandiganbayan Justice and Gadon claims (with no source cited) she includes her “neophyte lawyers”
in shortlists for Metro Manila regional trial court judges.
She accused now Justice Francis Jardeleza of lack of integrity, violating due process by not giving him a chance to
respond to her allegations, and had him removed from the short list by invoking a rule requiring a unanimous JBC vote
for allegations on integrity. (Source: SC decision)

Justice Arturo Brion wrote, in his concurring opinion in the SC decision Jardeleza v. Sereno (2014), that: “CJ Sereno
manipulated the JBC process to exclude Jardeleza as a nominee.” Brion accused Sereno of “character assassination in
the guise of a Supplemental Coment” and timed this comment at a stage of the case when Jardeleza would have no
opportunity to refute it. (Source: Justice Brion’s opinion in SC decision)

Jardeleza publicly narrated his “near death experience” with Sereno in his Commencement Address before the UP Law
Class of 2015. (Source: Copy of speech)

Manipulating JBC

Further, Sereno arbitrarily had the JBC submit nominees for six Sandiganbayan Justice positions in 2015 in six groups or
“clusters.” This forced the President to choose an appointee from the cluster for that vacancy, instead of allowing him to
choose from all nominees submitted by the JBC. This allegedly favored nominees from Sereno’s staff, among others, by
“clustering” them with weaker candidates.

The SC decision Aguinaldo v. Aquino (2016) invalidated this as “utterly without legal basis and in contravention of the
President’s appointing power” and “appears to have been done arbitrarily.” (Source: SC decision)

The Aguinaldo decision also criticized other rules changes: “There appears to be a systematic move by the JBC, under
Chief Justice Sereno, to arrogate to itself more power and influence than it is actually granted by the Constitution and
this Court, and at the same time, to ease out the Court from any legitimate participation in the noination process for
vacancies in the Judiciary, specifically in the Supreme Court.” (Source: SC decision)

Further, Brion’s opinion in the Jardeleza decision accused Sereno of claiming “several Justices” wanted to do away with
other justices giving input on SC nominees to the JBC, but, “When subsequently confronted… failed to name anyone.”
(Source: Justice Brion’s opinion in SC decision)

Blocking de Lima arrest

Sereno had a SC official call the Muntinlupa judges handling de Lima’s 2017 cases and order them not to issue warrants
of arrest “considering she is a senator.” (Source: none)

Sereno ordered Court of Appeals Justices to “ignore and defy,” in Gadon’s terms, the House show cause order on the
“Ilocos six.” The case could have been elevated to the SC and other justices denied consenting to the order. (Source:
Delon Porcalla, Edu Punay, Jess Diaz, Philippine Star)

Sereno gave a strongly worded speech against martial law and the Marcos regime at the 2017 Ateneo de Manila
graduation, warning that the “possibility of history repeating itself looms imminent.” She then joined deliberations on
and voted against martial law. (Source: Inquirer copy of speech)

‘Falsifying’ orders
Sereno had the SC issue Resolution A.M. No. 12-11-9-SC (Nov. 9, 2012), which ratified her reviving the Regional Court
Administration Office in Region 7. Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro later protested that a majority of justices had
opposed this. (Source: Tetch Torres, Inquirer; Jomar Canlas, Manila Times)

Sereno “deliberately tampered with and altered,” and expanded the scope of, a draft temporary restraining order
recommended by De Castro in 2013. This TRO was for the Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens against the
Commission on Elections. (Source: Manila Times)

Delayed pensions

Sereno “shelved” pensions of retired justices and justices and surviving spouses. These include 30 petitions by spouses
at least 80 years old, all pending for at least two years. (Source: none)

Sereno has left four senior SC staff positions vacant since 2013, allegedly waiting for her staff to qualify. She also
appointed the Chief of the Philippine Mediation Center in 2016 without the SC’s authority. (Source: none)

Delayed Maute transfer

The justices informally agreed to transfer Maute cases to Taguig. Sereno preferred these be heard in Cagayan de Oro.
She delayed the transfer by stating she was drafting the transfer resolution for Taguig. “Although dated June 27, 2017,
the Resolution was only released on July 20, 2017, after news of her impending impeachment broke out.” (Source: none)

Lack of bidding

Sereno hired a SC ICT consultant for PHP250,000 a month in 2013 without public bidding. (Source: none)

Falsifying CV

Sereno stated in her Personal Data Sheet for the SC that she was a “Deputy Commissioner” of the Commission on
Human Rights “when there is no such position.” (Source: none)

She also stated she was “a lecturer at the Hague Academy of International Law” but this is false. (Source: Ninez Cacho-
Olivares opinion column in Daily Tribune)

Duterte to file impeachment case vs. Ombudsman, CJ Sereno

Published October 4, 2017 4:57pm

Updated October 4, 2017 6:16pm

By TRISHA MACAS, GMA News

President Rodrigo Duterte on Wednesday said he would file an impeachment case against Ombudsman Conchita Carpio
Morales and Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

"We will file an impeachment case against her and I would tend to believe she was part of the conspiracy ... iyong
fabricated papers," Duterte said of Morales.

Duterte said the grounds for impeachment would be selective justice and the use of falsified documents.

Duterte was referring to the documents that Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur Carandang said the Anti-
Money Laundering Council provided the Ombudsman office on Duterte's alleged multibillion peso wealth.
The AMLC issued a statement that it was yet to evaluate the Ombudsman office’s request on Duterte’s wealth on the
matter and release any report.

The President said that he would present his real bank records at the impeachment trial against Morales to prove her
Office held falsified documents.

"You have prove it's fabrication," he said.

Duterte also said he would file an impeachment case against Sereno after lambasting her for alleged corruption.

He said he would another complaint on top of lawyer Lorenzo "Larry" Gadon's impeachment complaint against the Chief
Justice.

Duterte raised Sereno’s supposed luxury, as shown her choice of vehicle and during her trips.

He also slammed her again for the P30-million lawyer’s fees she received from the government for representing
Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc. in an arbitration case in Singapore in 2003. He said Sereno did not declare
the amount in her statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth.

“Ang nagbayad ng attorney’s fees niya, ang gobyerno. Tignan mo gaano kalaki. Ang kliyente niya pinadugo niya,
Pilipino,” he said of the Chief Justice. — RSJ/BM, GMA News

How Sereno answered her impeachment complaint

None of Larry Gadon’s documents, though authentic, support his allegations, according to Sereno’s chief lawyer Alex
Poblador

VERIFIED ANSWER. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno files an 85-page verified answer before the House of
Representatives explaining point-by-point why the impeachment complaint against her must be dismissed.

MANILA, Philippines – Supreme Court (SC) Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno faces a tough battle ahead, at least in the
House of Representatives. Rumors in political circles indicate her impeachment complaint will go far in the lower
chamber, but her band of high-caliber lawyers remains confident about her case.

On Monday, September 25, they filed and presented before media their 85-page verified answer to the allegations. “This
is just fake news,” said one of Sereno’s spokespersons, lawyer Jojo Lacanilao.

“They belong to the garbage,” lawyer Alex Poblador added, referring to the newspaper reports heavily cited by Gadon in
his complaint. News reports, Poblador said, are hearsay and inadmissible evidence in a court proceeding.

Poblador added that Gadon’s documents, provided to him by the SC itself, may be authentic but they do not support his
allegations.

Here is how the Chief Justice answered the impeachment complaint:

1. Psychological reports

GADON: “An applicant to any position in the judiciary with a grade of 4 is unfit for the job.” Citing a report from Manila
Times, Gadon said Sereno got a 4 out of 5 grade in her psychological examination when she applied for the SC.

SERENO: “There is no such provision whatsoever in JBC-009, or the Rules of the JBC in effect when the Chief Justice
applied for a position in the Judiciary.”

The Chief Justice added that psychological examination results are used solely for evaluation purposes. Whether or not
she got a score of 4, Sereno said that “even if true a 4 in the alleged evaluation is not an offense, let alone an
impeachable one.” (READ: 'Do not be afraid to be minority': Chief Justice Sereno, 5 years on)

2. RCAO revival

GADON: Sereno committed culpable violation of the Constitution when she falsified a resolution in 2012 reviving the
Regional Court Administration Office in Region 7 or RCAO 7.

Gadon cited a December 3, 2012 memorandum by Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro saying that Sereno’s
resolution was not ratified by the en banc. This is proven, Gadon said, by the SC eventually issuing a corrective
resolution in January 2013.

SERENO: The SC had authorized the piloting of RCAO 7 as early as 2006. Then in 2008, the SC issued a resolution which
designates the chief justice to, “acting on his or her own,” designate the Regional Court Administrator to pilot RCAO 7.

For 6 years, the RCAO 7 was never piloted until 2012, when as newly-appointed Chief Justice, she appointed Geraldine
Faith Econg (now Sandiganbayan justice) as head of the judiciary decentralized region (JDO) in the 7th Judicial Region,
which, in effect, revived the RCAO 7.

The subsequent resolution, Sereno said, was not a corrective resolution or a recall of the first one. “The resolution was
meant to address the concerns raised by some members of the court regarding the problems encountered during the
pilot testing of RCAO 7.” (READ: Inside SC: Justice De Castro vs CJ Sereno?)

“It is obvious that the acts of the Chief Justice regarding the revival of the RCAO 7, even if disagreed to by Associate
Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro, do not constitute impeachable offenses.”

3. Blanket TRO on 2013 party-list proclamations

GADON: Sereno “tampered with and altered the contents of the draft temporary restraining order (TRO) sent by Justice
de Castro.” Gadon is referring to the SC’s TRO on party-list proclamations during the 2013 elections as a response to the
petition of disqualified Coalition of Association of Senior Citizens party-list.

De Castro wanted a TRO on the disqualification of Senior Citizens party-list only. “It was only after Sereno endured a
harsh tongue-lashing from De Castro, the original ponente of the tampered TRO was the TRO rectified and re-released,”
Gadon said. (READ: CJ Sereno asks lawmakers to choose democracy over partisan interest)

SERENO: Because the petition was filed during recess, SC internal rules authorized the Chief Justice to act on urgent
cases such as those pleading for a TRO. Therefore, she said, she was within her power to issue a TRO.

“She simply did not fully adopt the recommended draft order submitted to her for approval. The Chief Justice cannot
possibly falsify, tamper with or alter a TRO issued under her own authority.”
But a week later, the SC issued a status quo ante order which, in effect, applied De Castro’s recommendations. Sereno
insisted this was not a revocation of her earlier TRO, but just the en banc acting on its power to review the Chief Justice’s
TRO decisions while on recess.

4. Falsification of order to Medialdea?

GADON: It was another culpable violation of the Constitution when Sereno allegedly falsified an SC resolution which
directed Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea to submit complaint affidavits against 4 trial court judges allegedly
involved in the drug trade.

The SC would eventually issue a resolution which did not issue a directive to Medialdea but instead invited pertinent
officials to submit the complaint affidavits.

SERENO: All a matter of miscommunication. According to her verified answer, the “directive” was contained in a draft
resolution. On August 8, 2016, even though the full version of the resolution was still up for revision, the dispositive
portion was already final. The SC’s Public Information Office (PIO) released the dispositive portion of the resolution on
the same day.

“This is what happened here, with the PIO reporting that the Court had directed the Executive Secretary to submit
complaints.” The directive part, however, was removed from the final version of the resolution, which was what was
signed by the justices.

“The revision does not prove that the first version of the resolution was fake. The complainant’s allegations that the
Chief Justice authorized the release of a ‘fake resolution' were a product of his own malicious understanding of matters
over which he has no personal knowledge of.”

5. Piatco fees

GADON: Sereno did not truthfully disclose her earnings from defending – and then winning – a government arbitration
case against Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc. (Piatco) in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth
(SALN). This amounted to P37 million.

The issue over Piatco earnings is one of Gadon’s more interesting allegations, according to court observers, if only
because of the precedent set by the impeachment of the late former chief justice Renato Corona.

SERENO: Then a private lawyer, she earned P30 million, not P37 million, from the Piatco case. She received the fees in a
span of 5 years from 2004 to 2009 or during the whole process.

She was appointed to the SC as an Associate Justice in 2010 and as a public official, was required to declare her assets in
her SALN. What she declared that year was what remained of her Piatco earnings, as well as properties she had acquired
through the years with that money.

Of the P30 million, P8.67 million was paid as taxes, P14.7 million was spent on medical expenses and procurement of a
house and lot in Filinvest and a Toyota Altis, and the remaining P6.9 million went to her family’s living expenses from
2004 to 2009. All the properties and investments are declared in her SALN.

Sereno's 2016 SALN shows her net worth at P24.2 million, more than P2.76 million compared to her net worth in 2015.

6. The Jardeleza appointment

GADON: Sereno manipulated the short list of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to exclude Associate Justice Francis
Jardeleza for “personal and political reasons, and curtailing the President’s power to appoint him."

Gadon said Sereno manipulated the JBC into excluding Jardeleza from the short list even though he already had
sufficient votes. Sereno imposed the unanimity rule, ordinarily not required for short-listed nominees. Jardeleza
contested his exclusion before the SC. He won that petition and was eventually appointed. (READ: The inside story:
Jardeleza accused of disloyalty to PH)

Retired justice Arturo Brion wrote a scathing concurring opinion which reads in part: “The manipulation was a purposive
campaign to discredit and deal Jardeleza a mortal blow at the JBC level to remove him as a contender at the presidential
level of the appointing process.

SERENO: “The Chief Justice did not manipulate anything. Complainant is simply echoing language from the separate
concurring opinion of former Associate Justice Arturo Brion in Jardeleza vs Sereno. In other words, complainant is relying
on opinion, instead of facts, the law and doctrine.”

Sereno, as ex-officio chairman of the JBC, contested Jardeleza’s nomination because of integrity issues. Sereno
questioned Jardeleza’s deletion of a portion in the memorandum submitted to the United Nations during the arbitration
case over the West Philippine Sea. Jardeleza was solicitor general at the time.

Citing Section 2, Rule 10 of the JBC rules, Sereno said a unanimous vote is required of a nominee if his or her integrity is
challenged. “Her expression of such opinion within the confines of the existing JBC rules cannot amount to a violation of
the Constitution, much less one which is culpable in nature and for which she deserves to be impeached,” said her
verified answer.

7. Clustering in the JBC

GADON: Sereno manipulated the short list of the JBC for 6 vacancies at the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan to
accommodate her favored nominees.

In 2015, 6 vacancies opened up at the same time and the JBC decided, by a majority vote (Senator Koko Pimentel was
the lone dissenting vote) to cluster the nominees. Clustering was an issue for some because it could be used to put the
favored nominee in a group of perceived weak nominees to increase the chances of getting the appointment.

Zaldy Trespeses, Sereno’s chief protocol officer at the time, would eventually get one of these 6 appointments.

SERENO: “The JBC has been clustering nominees since 2013 without anyone objecting to its validity.” Sereno insisted she
did not manipulate the JBC because the members voted on their own.

She pointed out that clustering had always been done in good faith whenever there were multiple vacancies. Sereno
cited Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution which says: “The members of the Supreme Court and lower courts shall be
appointed by the President from a list of at least 3 nominees prepared by the JBC for every vacancy.”

Sereno also pointed out that former president Benigno Aquino III still ended up choosing his appointments not from the
clusters, but from his own preferences. For example, not one on the cluster for the 16th Sandiganbayan justice was
appointed. Furthermore, two appointed justices – Michael Frederick Musngi and Geraldine Faith Econg – belonged to
one cluster.

In February 2017, the SC – acting on the petition of the short-listed judges who were bypassed in that set of
appointments – declared clustering unconstitutional.
Poblador said that the February 2017 ruling was not retroactive and cannot be used against Sereno because the
questioned clustering happened in 2015 or two years before.

8. Excessive use of funds

GADON: Sereno had excessively used court funds in her purchase of a P5-million Toyota Land Cruiser, the booking of a
presidential villa in Boracay for P200,000 a night, her business class travels, and her inclusion of a “huge entourage of
lawyers” in official trips.

SERENO: Every expense is within bounds.

On the land cruiser, Sereno cited a budget circular that expressly allows the Chief Justice to buy a luxury vehicle for
security purposes.

On the presidential villa, Sereno said the SC approved the budget to book the villa for the all-day use of the ASEAN chief
justices who had come to Boracay for the 3rd meeting of ASEAN chief justices.

Sereno, her staff, and part of the event secretariat then used the villa overnight at no additional cost. Booking separate
rooms for the purpose of sleeping in them would have cost the SC more, said Sereno.

Sereno said that the SC Human Resource Manual “expressly allowed the Chief Justice to travel on full business class.”
The reason why other justices don’t is because the same manual prohibits them from doing so.

Sereno said the lawyers who join her on office trips were necessary for her to do her job. “There is no rule (and the
Complainant has cited none) which prohibits the Chief Justice from bringing her staff on foreign trips.”

Sereno said that in 16 of her foreign trips, she traveled alone on 4 occasions, brought one lawyer on 9 trips, two lawyers
on two trips, and 3 lawyers on one trip.

Gadon’s complaint has been declared sufficient in form and substance by the House committee on justice voting 30-4.
The next step is to put it through another round of votes to decide if there is probable cause.

Hearings would then be conducted after which a third of the House of 97 members should vote to transmit the
complaint to the Senate which will sit as an impeachment court.

Sereno’s lawyers are moving to be allowed to cross-examine Gadon and witnesses during the House hearings. –
Rappler.com
Lawyer prepares impeachment case vs Sereno

Lawyer Larry Gadon says the case revolves around Chief Justice Sereno's supposed undeclared earnings and a P5.1-
million vehicle purchase

IMPEACHMENT THREAT. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno faces an impeachment threat right after some of her
actions were questioned by Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo De Castro in a memorandum sent to SC Justices.

MANILA, Philippines – Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno is facing threats of an impeachment case due to an alleged P5-
million car purchase at the Supreme Court (SC), and supposed undeclared millions worth of earnings when she was still a
private lawyer.

Lawyer Larry Gadon told Rappler on Saturday, July 29, that he is leading the case buildup against Sereno, which he hopes
to file before the House of Representatives next week.

An impeachment complaint is considered officially filed at the House if it has the endorsement of a congressman.

"I am already talking to some congressmen who have committed to endorsing it. I cannot disclose their names at this
time," Gadon said.

Grounds

An impeachment complaint can be filed based on the grounds of culpable violation of the constitution, treason, bribery,
graft and corruption, other high crimes and betrayal of public trust.

Gadon said the vehicle purchase by Sereno can be considered betrayal of public trust.

Gadon showed Rappler two documents pertaining to the vehicle purchase. One is an endorsement letter dated
December 2, 2016, where Supreme Court (SC) Procurement Committee Assistant Chief Carina Cunanan referred the
purchase proposal to SC Bids and Awards Committee Chair Thelma Bahia.
TOYOTA PURCHASE. Documents showing the proposed P5.1-million vehicle purchase for CJ Sereno. Photos from Atty
Larry Gadon

The vehicle is a Toyota Land Cruiser "for the official use of Honorable Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno."

The letter also mentions an estimate of P5.2 million not yet inclusive of the "bullet proofing." (READ: Scrutinizing Sereno,
one year after)

The 2nd document dated January 3 this year is a bid abstract for Toyota Makati for the amount of P5,110,500.

"Heto munang nilabas ko 'yung sa car, kasi malaki ang public interest dito kasi si President Duterte nga hindi nga bumili
ng bagong sasakyan," Gadon said. (I'm only releasing the car documents for now because there is high public interest
here, because even President Duterte did not buy a new car.)

After winning the elections in June 2016, Duterte said he will not use the presidential vehicles and will instead stick to
his trusty Isuzu pickup.

Gadon added that his cursory search revealed that the Toyota Land Cruiser Model (200 4.5 L V8 A/T Premium) is only
listed at P4.5 million on the Toyota Philippines website.

Undeclared earnings?

The second ground used by Gadon is the long-reported supposed earnings of Sereno back when she was a private
lawyer and represented the government in an arbitration case. (READ: Sereno faces uphill battle in High Court)

Sereno, retired SC Justice Florentino Feliciano and foreign lawyers represented the Department of Transportation and
Communications (DOTC) when Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc. (Piatco) sued them for damages before the
International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Singapore.

The SC nullified Piatco's contract to build a NAIA terminal in 2003 because of irregularities so Piatco elevated the case
before the ICC in Singapore. The government, through the help of lawyers such as Sereno, won that case.

Gadon said Sereno's earnings from that case are not reflected in the Chief Justice's Statement of Assets, Liabilities and
Net Worth (SALN).

"According to my latest inquiries she earned more than 30 million," Gadon said.

Gadon added: "Undeclared assets in SALN was the ground used against Corona so why shouldn't it be used against
Sereno?"

The late former chief justice Renato Corona was impeached at the Senate in 2012 by a vote of 20-3. Corona was found
guilty of failing to disclose and accurately declare his bank deposits and properties in his SALN, which constituted
betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.

Sereno's 2016 SALN released recently shows her net worth is at Php 24.2 million, more than Php 2.76 million compared
to her net worth in 2015, according to a report by the Philippine News Agency (PNA).

The impeachment threat against Sereno comes after Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro questioned some of
her actions in a memorandum sent to SC justices, including travel allowances for the Chief Justice's staff and the
appointment of the head of the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC). – Rappler.com
2 SC justices willing to testify in Sereno impeachment case, says complainant

By

Lira Dalangin-Fernandez, InterAksyon

File photos of lawyer Lorenzo Gadon (from InterAksyon) and Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno (from Philstar)

MANILA, Philippines — Two male justices of the Supreme Court are willing to testify in the impeachment case against
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno that was recently filed at the House of Representatives, the complainant, lawyer
Lorenzo Gadon, said.

“Ang pagkakaalam ko sa ngayon, dalawa are already willing to (testify), parehong lalake,” he said at a news forum on
Thursday, August 31.

Gadon said it was also possible that a third justice of the high tribunal — a female magistrate – would testify against
Sereno “if she will respect also the processes of the House.”

On Wednesday, August 30, Gadon field an impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice, accusing her of culpably
violating the Constitution, betraying public trust, and committing corruption and other high crimes.

The complaint was endorsed by 25 House members.

According to Gadon, Sereno could be impeached just with her allegedly untruthful declarations in her Statement of
Assets Liabilities and Net worth (SALN).

“Iyong [The] SALN from 2010 to 2017, shoot na [it’s already shoot]…Malaki ang discrepancy sa SALN [There are big
discrepancies in the SALN],” he said.

Gadon claimed that Sereno did not include in her initial SALN the P37 million lawyer’s fees from the Philippine
government as part of a team of local private lawyers in the Philippine International Air Terminals Co. (Piatco) case.

In his complaint, Gadon accused Sereno of culpably violating the Charter after she allegedly falsified the following:

–Resolution of the Supreme Court in A.M. No. 12-11-9-SC (Re: Opening the Regional Court Administrative Office in
Region 7 dated Nov. 27, 2012); (Creating a Needs Assessment Committee to Study the Necessity of Decentralizing the
Functions in Support of the Supreme Court’s Power of Administrative Supervision Over Lower Courts dated dated Jan.
22, 2013)

–Temporary Restraining Order of the Supreme Court in G.R. Nos. 206844-45 (TRO in Coalition of Associations of Senior
Citizens in the Philippines v. Comelec)

–Resolution of the Supreme Court in A.M. No. 16-08-04-SC (dated August 16, 2016, ordering the Conduct of a Motu
Proprio Fact Finding Investigation on Allegation of Four (4) Incumbent Judges’ Involvement in Illegal Drugs)

The complainant also claimed that Sereno culpably violated the 1987 Constitution when she allegedly:

–Delayed action on the numerous petitions for retirement benefits of justices and judges, and the surviving spouses of
deceased magistrates
–Manipulated and thereafter delayed the resolution of A.M. No. 17-06-02-SC (the request of the Secretary of Justice to
transfer the Maute cases outside of Mindanao) after realizing that she lost in the voting

–Failed to truthfully disclose her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth

–Manipulated the shortlist of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to exclude then Solicitor General Francis H. Jardeleza, for
personal and political reasons, thereby disgracing Jardeleza, and curtailing the President’s power to appoint him

–Manipulated the shortlist of the JBC for the six vacancies in the Sandiganbayan, for personal and political reasons,
thereby limiting the President’s power to appoint the justices of the Sandiganbayan

–Manipulated the shortlist of the JBC for the two vacancies in the Supreme Court, and failed to heed the
pronouncements of the Court in Aguinaldo v. Aquino, thereby impairing and curtailing the President’s power to appoint
the Justices of the Supreme Court

–Lied and made it appear that “several justices” requested that they do away with voting for recommendees to the
Supreme Court, when in fact not one Justice requested for it

–Manipulated the JBC, especially its four (4) regular members, effectively destroying the JBC as a constitutional body
mandated to fairly and impartially screen and nominate applicants to the Judiciary

Gadon likewise alleged that Sereno had committed corruption when she:

–Used public funds to finance her extravagant and lavish lifestyle by ordering the purchase of a brand-new luxurious
Toyota Land Cruiser 2017 model as her personal vehicle, amounting to more than P5 million

–Used public funds to stay in opulent hotels when attending conferences in the Philippines and abroad, and flying on
business or first class together with her staff and security

-Used public funds to flaunt her extravagance by unnecessarily bringing a huge entourage of lawyers in her supposed
official foreign trips

He further claimed that the Chief Justice had committed other high crimes when she allegedly:

–Obstructed justice by ordering the Muntinlupa Judges not to issue warrants of arrest against Senator Leila M. De Lima

–Perverted justice by meeting the Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals and instructing them
not to comply with the processes of the House of Representatives and to immediately question its processes before the
Supreme Court

–Failed to report her extortionate attorney’s fees and pay the appropriate taxes therefor

–Embellished her personal data sheet in her application for the judiciary to overstate her credentials

He also alleged that Sereno betrayed public trust when she:

–Hired an Information Technology consultant with an excessive compensation without public bidding, in contravention
of existing laws, Commission on Audit rules, and public policy

–Sent a strongly-worded but misplaced reply to President Rodrigo Roa Duterte on the Judges linked to drugs thereby
inviting a head-on collision between the Presidency and the Judiciary

–Prevented the Justices of the Court of Appeals to do a courtesy call on President Rodrigo Roa Duterte
–Attacked the imposition of Martial Law in a commencement address, while the validity of Martial Law was still pending
before the Supreme Court, and later continued to participate in the Court’s deliberations

–Issued a Joint Statement with the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals regarding CA-GR SP No. 151029, which can
very well be elevated to the Supreme Court

–Practiced favoritism by allowing key positions in the Supreme Court to remain unfilled for a long period of time in order
to wait for her staff to qualify, to the detriment of the service and great demoralization of qualified Court employees

–Appointed a key official without authority or approval of the Court en banc, in violation of Court-established rules and
the Constitution

–Gave her newly-hired staff foreign travels and granted them travel allowances for their foreign travels without
authority or approval of the Court en banc, in violation of Court-established rules and the Constitution

–Usurped the mandate of the Court en banc by arrogating to herself alone the running of the Supreme Court and the
Judiciary, thereby destroying the Supreme Court as a collegial body