Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(Current Number of Legislative DistrictRepresentatives ÷ 0.80) In short, there shall be two rounds in determining the allocation
x (0.20) = Number of Seats Available to Party-List of the seats. In the first round, all party-lists which garnered at
Representatives least 2% of the votes cast (called the two-percenters) are given
their one seat each. The total number of seats given to these
Hence, two-percenters are then deducted from the total available seats
(220 ÷ 0.80) x (0.20) = 55 for party-lists. In this case, 17 party-lists were able to garner 2%
each. There are a total 55 seats available for party-lists hence,
II. The 20% allocation for party-list representatives is merely a 55 minus 17 = 38 remaining seats. (Please refer to the full text
ceiling – meaning, the number of party-list representatives shall of the case for the tabulation).
not exceed 20% of the total number of the members of the lower
house. However, it is not mandatory that the 20% shall be filled. The number of remaining seats, in this case 38, shall be used in
the second round, particularly, in determining, first, the
III. No. Section 11b of RA 7941 is unconstitutional. There is no additional seats for the two-percenters, and second, in
constitutional basis to allow that only party-lists which garnered determining seats for the party-lists that did not garner at least
2% of the votes cast are qualified for a seat and those which 2% of the votes cast, and in the process filling up the 20%
garnered less than 2% are disqualified. Further, the 2% allocation for party-list representatives.
threshold creates a mathematical impossibility to attain the How is this done?
ideal 80-20 apportionment. The Supreme Court explained:
Get the total percentage of votes garnered by the party and
To illustrate: There are 55 available party-list seats. Suppose multiply it against the remaining number of seats. The product,
there are 50 million votes cast for the 100 participants in the which shall not be rounded off, will be the additional number of
party list elections. A party that has two percent of the votes seats allotted for the party list – but the 3 seat limit rule shall still
cast, or one million votes, gets a guaranteed seat. Let us be observed.
further assume that the first 50 parties all get one million votes. Example:
Only 50 parties get a seat despite the availability of 55 seats.
Because of the operation of the two percent threshold, this In this case, the BUHAY party-list garnered the highest total vote
situation will repeat itself even if we increase the available of 1,169,234 which is 7.33% of the total votes cast for the party-
list elections (15,950,900).
party-list seats to 60 seats and even if we increase the votes
cast to 100 million. Thus, even if the maximum number of Applying the formula above: (Percentage of vote garnered) x
parties get two percent of the votes for every party, it is always (remaining seats) = number of additional seat
impossible for the number of occupied party-list seats to
Hence, 7.33% x 38 = 2.79
exceed 50 seats as long as the two percent threshold is
present. Rounding off to the next higher number is not allowed so 2.79
remains 2. BUHAY is a two-percenter which means it has a
It is therefore clear that the two percent threshold presents an guaranteed one seat PLUS additional 2 seats or a total of 3
unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of Section seats. Now if it so happens that BUHAY got 20% of the votes
5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents the attainment cast, it will still get 3 seats because the 3 seat limit rule prohibits
of “the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or it from having more than 3 seats.
group interests in the House of Representatives.”
Now after all the tw0-percenters were given their guaranteed Rationale:
and additional seats, and there are still unoccupied seats, those
seats shall be distributed to the remaining party-lists and those a. Yes. Political parties, even the major ones, may participate
higher in rank in the voting shall be prioritized until all the seats in the party-list elections. Under the Constitution and RA 7941,
are occupied. private respondents cannot be disqualified from the party-list
elections, merely on the ground that they are political parties.
V. No. By a vote of 8-7, the Supreme Court continued to disallow
major political parties (the likes of UNIDO, LABAN, etc) from Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides that members
participating in the party-list elections. of the House of Representatives may "be elected through a
party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral
Although the ponencia (Justice Carpio) did point out that there parties or organizations."
is no prohibition either from the Constitution or from RA 7941
against major political parties from participating in the party-list Furthermore, under Sections 7 and 8, Article IX (C) of the
elections as the word “party” was not qualified and that even the Constitution, political parties may be registered under the
framers of the Constitution in their deliberations deliberately party-list system. For its part, Section 2 of RA 7941 also
allowed major political parties to participate in the party-list provides for "a party-list system of registered national, regional
elections provided that they establish a sectoral wing which and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, x x
represents the marginalized (indirect participation), Justice
x." Section 3 expressly states that a "party" is "either a political
Puno, in his separate opinion, concurred by 7 other justices,
party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties."
explained that the will of the people defeats the will of the
framers of the Constitution precisely because it is the people b. No. That political parties may participate in the party-list
who ultimately ratified the Constitution – and the will of the
elections does not mean, however, that any political party -- or
people is that only the marginalized sections of the country shall
participate in the party-list elections. Hence, major political any organization or group for that matter – may do so. The
parties cannot participate in the party-list elections, directly or requisite character of these parties or organizations must be
indirectly. consistent with the purpose of the party-list system, as laid
down in the Constitution and RA 7941. Section 5, Article VI of
VI. Yes, the 3 seat limit rule is valid. This is one way to ensure the Constitution. The provision on the party-list system is not
that no one party shall dominate the party-list system. self-executory. It is, in fact, interspersed with phrases like "in
___________________________________________ accordance with law" or "as may be provided by law"; it was
thus up to Congress to sculpt in granite the lofty objective of
4. Ang Bagong Bayani vs COMELEC the Constitution. Hence, RA 7941 was enacted.
Facts: ___________________________________________
Bagong Bayani and and Akbayan Citizens Party filed before 5. Atong Paglaum vs COMELEC
the COMELEC a Petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
challenging Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 issued by the Atong Paglaum, Inc. and 51 other parties were disqualified by
COMELEC. This resolution approved the participation of 154 the Commission on Elections in the May 2013 party-list
organizations and parties, including those impleaded, in the elections for various reasons but primarily for not being
2001 party list elections. Petitioners seek the disqualification of qualified as representatives for marginalized or
private respondents, arguing mainly that the party list system underrepresented sectors.
was intended to benefit the marginalized and
underrepresented; not the mainstream political parties, the Atong Paglaum et al then filed a petition for certiorari against
none-marginalized or overrepresented. COMELEC alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of
COMELEC in disqualifying them.
a. Whether or not political parties may participate in the party- HELD: No. The COMELEC merely followed the guidelines set
list elections in the cases of Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT. However, the
Supreme Court remanded the cases back to the COMELEC as
b. Whether or not the party-list system is exclusive to the Supreme Court now provides for new guidelines which
‘marginalized and underrepresented’ sectors and abandoned some principles established in the two aforestated
organizations. cases. The new guidelines are as follows:
1) Is a petition for mandamus the proper remedy to enforce -The SC cannot accede to PHOTOKINA’s contention that there
contractual obligations? is already a perfected contract. While the SC, in MMDA v.
Jancom, held that the effect of an unqualified acceptance of
NO. the offer of the bidder is to perfect the bidder, however such
statement would be inconsequential in a government where
2) May a successful bidder compel a government agency to
the acceptance referred to is yet to meet certain conditions. To
formalize a contract with it notwithstanding that its bid exceeds
hold otherwise is to allow a public officer to execute a binding
the amount appropriated by Congress for the project? NO.
contract that would obligate the government in an amount in
Held/Ratio excess of the appropriations for the purpose for which the
contract was attempted to be made. This is a dangerous
Issue #1 precedent.
-In the present case, there seems to be an oversight of the Ribbon Committee. After committee hearing, Lopa refused to
legal requirements as early as the bidding stage. testify before the committee for it may unduly prejudice a
pending civil case against him. Bengzon likewise refused
-The first step of a Bids and Awards Committee is to determine invoking his right to due process. Lopa however sent a letter to
whether the bids comply with the requirements. The amount of Enrile categorically denying his allegations and that his
PHOTOKINA’s bid is 6.588 Billion Pesos. However under allegations are baseless and malicious.
the Appropriations Act for that year, the only fund
appropriated was 1 Billion Pesos and under the Certification of Enrile subsequently took advantage of the Senate’s privilege
Available Funds only 1.2 Billion pesos was available. There is hour upon which he insisted to have an inquiry regarding the
no way that the COMELEC could enter into a contract with matter. The SBRC rejected Lopa’s and Bengzon’s plea.
PHOTOKINA whose accepted bid was beyond the
amount appropriated by law. The Committee should have Claiming that the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee is poised to
rejected the bid right away. subpoena them and require their attendance and testimony in
proceedings before the Committee, in excess of its jurisdiction
-The draft contract submitted by Commissioner Sadain that and legislative purpose, in clear and blatant disregard of their
provides for a contract price of constitutional rights, and to their grave and irreparable
damage, prejudice and injury, and that there is no appeal nor
1.2 Billion Pesos covers only the Phase 1 of the VRIS Project any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
(issuance of identification cards for only 1,000,000 voters in course of law, Bengzon et al filed a petition for prohibition with
specified areas). In effect, the implementation of the contract a prayer for temporary restraining order and/or injunctive relief
will be segmented into several phases. This arrangement is against the SBRC.
disallowed by the budgetary laws and practices. It is also
disadvantageous to the COMELEC because of the uncertainty ISSUE: Whether or not the inquiry sought by the SBRC be
that will loom over its modernization project for an indefinite granted.
period of time. The completion of Phase 1 of the VRIS Project
would do no good. Entering into a multi-year contract without a HELD: No, the inquiry cannot be given due course. The
multi- year obligational authority is prohibited by law. speech of Enrile contained no suggestion of contemplated
legislation; he merely called upon the Senate to look into a
-The contract is inexistent and void ab initio. It cannot be possible violation of Sec. 5 of RA No. 3019, otherwise known
validated either by lapse of time or ratification. as “The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.” In other words,
the purpose of the inquiry to be conducted by the Blue Ribbon
-PHOTOKINA’s remedy is found in Sec. 48 of EO 292, which Committee was to find out whether or not the relatives of Cory,
explicitly provides that any contract entered into contrary to the particularly Lopa, had violated the law in connection with the
legal requirements shall be void, and “the officers entering alleged sale of the 36 or 39 corporations belonging to Kokoy to
into the contract shall be liable to the Government the Lopa Group. There appears to be, therefore, no intended
or other contracting party for any consequent damage to the legislation involved. Hence, the contemplated inquiry by the
same as if the transaction had been wholly between private SBRC is not really “in aid of legislation” because it is not
parties.” related to a purpose within the jurisdiction of Congress, since
the aim of the investigation is to find out whether or not the
-When the contracting officer acts beyond the scope of his
relatives of the President or Mr. Ricardo Lopa had violated
legitimate powers, the Government is not bound under the
Section 5 of RA No. 3019, the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt
contract. It would be as if the contract were a private one,
Practices Act”, a matter that appears more within the province
where the officer binds only himself, and thus, assumes
of the courts rather than of the legislature. Besides, the Court
personal liability thereunder. The proposed contract is
may take judicial notice that Mr. Ricardo Lopa died during the
unenforceable as to the Government.
pendency of this case.
__________________________________________
___________________________________________
In the light of the construction given to Sec 13, Art 7 in relation RULING:
to Sec 7, par. (2), Art IX-B of the 1987 Constitution, EO 284 is
unconstitutional. Ostensibly restricting the number of positions
that Cabinet members, undersecretaries or assistant
secretaries may hold in addition to their primary position to not 1. Political questions- "to those questions which, under the
more than 2 positions in the government and government Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign
corporations, EO 284 actually allows them to hold multiple capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has
been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the
government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the 4. He assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge
wisdom, not legality of a particular measure." that may come in the same service of the country;
Legal distinction between EDSA People Power I EDSA People 5. He called on his supporters to join him in promotion of a
Power II: constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity.
__________________________________________________
8. IBP vs Zamora
9. People vs Patriarca
FACTS:
Patriarca was charged with the crime of murder for the death of
Invoking his powers as Commander-in-Chief under Sec 18, Alfredo Arevalo before RTC Sorsogon docketed as Criminal
Art. VII of the Constitution, President Estrada, in verbal Case No. 2773. He was also charged with murder for the killing
directive, directed the AFP Chief of Staff and PNP Chief to of one Rudy de Borja and a certain Elmer Cadag under
coordinate with each other for the proper deployment and Informations docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 2665 and 2672,
campaign for a temporary period only. The IBP questioned the respectively. The RTC found him guilty in Criminal Case No.
validity of the deployment and utilization of the Marines to 2773 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
assist the PNP in law enforcement. perpetua. Patriarca appealed the decision to the SC.
Issue:
RULING:
1. The power of judicial review is set forth in Section 1, Article What is the effect of the grant of amnesty to the conviction of
VIII of the Constitution, to wit: the accused-appellant?
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Held:
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
10. Neri vs Senate Committee Paula Corbin Jones sued President Bill Clinton. She alleged
that while she was an Arkansas state employee, she suffered
In April April 2007, DOTC entered into a contract with Zhong several "abhorrent" sexual advances from then Arkansas
Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) for the supply of Governor Clinton. Jones claimed that her continued rejection of
equipment and services for the National Broadband Network Clinton's advances ultimately resulted in punishment by her
(NBN) Project in the amount of $329,481,290.00 state supervisors. Following a District Court's grant of Clinton's
(approximately P16 Billion Pesos). The Project was to be request that all matters relating to the suit be suspended,
financed by the People’s Republic of China. The Senate pending a ruling on his prior request to have the suit dismissed
passed various resolutions relative to the NBN deal. On the on grounds of presidential immunity, Clinton sought to invoke
other hand, Joe De Venecia issued a statement that several his immunity to completely dismiss the Jones suit against him.
high executive officials and power brokers were using their While the District Judge denied Clinton's immunity request, the
influence to push the approval of the NBN Project by the judge ordered the stay of any trial in the matter until after
NEDA. Clinton's Presidency. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal denial but reversed the trial deferment ruling since it
Neri, the head of NEDA, was then invited to testify before the
would be a "functional equivalent" to an unlawful grant of
Senate Blue Ribbon. He appeared in one hearing wherein he
temporary presidential immunity.
was interrogated for 11 hrs and during which he admitted that
Abalos of COMELEC tried to bribe him with P200M in Question
exchange for his approval of the NBN project. He further
narrated that he informed President Arroyo about the bribery Is a serving President, for separation of powers reasons,
attempt and that she instructed him not to accept the bribe. entitled to absolute immunity from civil litigation arising out of
However, when probed further on what they discussed about events which transpired prior to his taking office?
the NBN Project, Neri refused to answer, invoking “executive
privilege“. In particular, he refused to answer the questions on
(a) whether or not President Arroyo followed up the NBN Conclusion
Project, (b) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it, and
(c) whether or not she directed him to approve. He later No. In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that the
refused to attend the other hearings and Ermita sent a letter to Constitution does not grant a sitting President immunity from
the SBRC averring that the communications between GMA civil litigation except under highly unusual circumstances. After
and Neri is privileged and that the jurisprudence laid down noting the great respect and dignity owed to the Executive
in Senate vs Ermita be applied. The SBRC cited Neri for office, the Court held that neither separation of powers nor the
contempt. need for confidentiality of high-level information can justify an
unqualified Presidential immunity from judicial process. While
ISSUE: Whether or not the three questions sought by the the independence of our government's branches must be
SBRC to be answered falls under executive privilege. protected under the doctrine of separation of powers, the
HELD: The oversight function of Congress may be facilitated Constitution does not prohibit these branches from exercising
any control over one another. This, the Court added, is true
by compulsory process only to the extent that it is performed in
despite the procedural burdens which Article III jurisdiction may
pursuit of legislation.
impose on the time, attention, and resources of the Chief
The communications elicited by the three (3) questions are Executive.
covered by the presidential communications privilege.
_________________________________________________
1st, the communications relate to a “quintessential and non-
12. Veliracia-Garafil vs Office of the President
delegable power” of the President, i.e. the power to enter into
an executive agreement with other countries. This authority of The present consolidated cases involve four petitions: G.R. No.
the President to enter into executive agreements without the 203372 with Atty. Cheloy E. Velicaria-Garafil (Atty. Velicaria-
Garafil), who was appointed State Solicitor II at the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG), as petitioner; G.R. No. 206290 (1) The following elements should always concur in the making
with Atty. Dindo G. Venturanza (Atty. Venturanza), who was of a valid (which should be understood as both complete and
appointed Prosecutor IV (City Prosecutor) of Quezon City, as effective) appointment:
petitioner; G.R. No. 209138 with Irma A. Villanueva
(Villanueva), who was appointed Administrator for Visayas of
the Board of Administrators of the Cooperative Development
a). authority to appoint and evidence of the exercise of the
Authority (CDA), and Francisca B. Rosquita (Rosquita), who
authority;
was appointed Commissioner of the National Commission of
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), as petitioners; and G.R. No.
212030 with Atty. Eddie U. Tamondong (Atty. Tamondong),
who was appointed member of the Board of Directors of the The President's exercise of his power to appoint officials is
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), as petitioner. All provided for in the Constitution and laws. Discretion is an
petitions question the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 2 integral part in the exercise of the power of appointment.
(EO 2) for being inconsistent with Section 15, Article VII of the Considering that appointment calls for a selection, the
1987 Constitution. appointing power necessarily exercises a discretion.
Two months immediately before the next presidential elections b.) transmittal of the appointment paper and evidence of the
and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President transmittal;
shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments
to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will
prejudice public service or endanger public safety. It is not enough that the President signs the appointment
paper. There should be evidence that the President intended
the appointment paper to be issued. It could happen that an
Thus, for purposes of the 2010 elections, 10 March 2010 was appointment paper may be dated and signed by the President
the cutoff date for valid appointments and the next day, 11 months before the appointment ban, but never left his locked
March 2010, was the start of the ban on midnight drawer for the entirety of his term. Release of the appointment
appointments. Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution paper through the MRO is an unequivocal act that signifies the
recognizes as an exception to the ban on midnight President's intent of its issuance.
appointments only "temporary appointments to executive
positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice
public service or endanger public safety." For purposes of verification of the appointment paper's
existence and authenticity, the appointment paper must bear
None of the petitioners claim that their appointments fall under
the security marks (i.e., handwritten signature of the President,
this exception.
bar code, etc.) and must be accompanied by a transmittal letter
from the MRO.
(1) whether petitioners' appointments violate Section 15, Article (4) receipt of the appointment paper and acceptance of the
VII of the 1987 Constitution, and appointment by the appointee who possesses all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications.
(2) whether EO 2 is constitutional.
13. Boac vs Cadapan During the pendency of the motion for reconsideration, Erlinda
Cadapan and Empeño filed before this Court a Petition for Writ
An amparo proceeding is not criminal in nature nor does it of Amparo (amparo case), with Prayers for Inspection of Place
ascertain the criminal liability of individuals or entities and Production of Documents. The petition impleaded the
involved. Neither does it partake of a civil or administrative same respondents in the habeas corpus petition, with the
suit. Rather, it is a remedial measure designed to direct addition of then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, then
specified courses of action to government agencies to Armed Forces of the Phil. (AFP) Chief of Staff Hermogenes
safeguard the constitutional right to life, liberty and security of Esperon Jr., (Gen. Esperon) then Phil. National Police (PNP)
aggrieved individuals. Chief Gen. Avelino Razon (Gen. Razon), Lt. Col. Felipe
Anotado (Lt. Col. Anotado) and Donald Caigas.
In other words, command responsibility may be loosely In fine, the appellate court erred in ruling that its directive
applied in amparo cases in order to identify those accountable to immediately release Sherlyn, Karen and Merino was not
individuals that have the power to effectively implement automatically executory. For that would defeat the very
whatever processes an amparo court would issue. In such purpose of having summary
application, the amparo court does not impute criminal proceedings in amparo petitions. Summary proceedings, it
responsibility but merely pinpoint the superiors it considers to bears emphasis, are immediately executory without prejudice
be in the best position to protect the rights of the aggrieved to further appeals that may be taken therefrom.
party.
__________________________________________________
Such identification of the responsible and accountable
superiors may well be a preliminary determination of criminal
liability which, of course, is still subject to further investigation JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
by the appropriate government agency.
1. Casar vs Soluren
Relatedly, the legislature came up with Republic Act No.
9851 (RA 9851) to include command responsibility as a form of DOCTRINE: This Court has consistently enjoined judges to
criminal complicity in crimes against international humanitarian avoid not just impropriety in their conduct but even the mere
law, genocide and other crimes. RA 9851 is thus the appearance of impropriety6 because the appearance of bias or
substantive law that definitively imputes criminal liability to prejudice can be damaging as actual bias or prejudice to the
those superiors who, despite their position, still fail to take all public’s confidence on the Judiciary’s role in the administration
necessary and reasonable measures within their power to of justice. To say the least, using detention prisoners who had
prevent or repress the commission of illegal acts or to submit cases before Judge Soluren cannot be countenanced.
these matters to the competent authorities for investigation and
prosecution. FACTS: Complainants, who were the Assistant Provincial
Prosecutors charged Judge Soluren with Gross Misconduct.
The Court finds that the appellate court erred when it did not They averred that on June 20 and 22, 2011 and July 19, 2011,
specifically name the respondents that it found to be Judge Soluren went to the Aurora Provincial Jail and conferred
responsible for the abduction and continued detention of with the inmates including those who had pending cases
Sherlyn, Karen and Merino. For, from the records, it appears before her sala. This was in contravention of Office of the
that the responsible and accountable individuals are Lt. Col. Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 03-2010, dated
Anotado, Lt. Mirabelle, Gen. Palparan, Lt. Col. Boac, Arnel January 12, 2010, which suspended the conduct of jail
Enriquez and Donald Caigas. They should thus be made to visitation and inspection by Executive Judges and Presiding
comply with the September 17, 2008 Decision of the appellate Judges pending results of the re-examination of the provisions
court to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Sherlyn, Karen and of A.M. No. 07-3-02-SC. According to complainants, the
Merino. purpose of Judge Soluren’s visit was to persuade the prisoners
into signing a letter addressed to then Chief Justice Renato C. in one year and secured by a mortgage over the disputed
Corona, calling for the dismissal of the administrative complaint properties. They defaulted on their loan, and on October 20,
filed against her by Atty. Juliet M. Isidro-Reyes, District Public 1997, China Bank foreclosed the mortgage and was declared
Attorney, Baler, Aurora, and for the removal of Judge Evelyn the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale. China Bank ex parte
Atienza-Turla as Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 6, Baler, petition for writ of possession was granted. Undeterred, the
Aurora. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued its petitioner filed a ―Motion to Quash/Abate the Writ of
Report, dated August 17, 2012, finding Judge Soluren guilty of Possession, which was denied by the RTC in its Order stating
Simple Misconduct and imposing upon her a fine of ten that it was a ministerial duty to issue the writ. The RTC also
thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to be deducted from her noted that the petitioner’s motion had been mooted by the
retirement benefits in view of her compulsory retirement from satisfaction of the writ on April 15, 2005, per the Sheriff’s
the service on January 29, 2012. return. CA ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of
discretion in denying Madriaga, Sr.’s motion to quash or abate
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Soluren can be held liable for the ex parte writ of possession for the reason that the motion
Simple Misconduct had already been rendered moot and academic after the writ
was satisfied on April 15, 2005 with the physical removal of
HELD: YES. Judge Soluren opened herself to charges of
Madriaga, Sr. from the premises.
impropriety when she went to the Aurora Provincial Jail to
solicit the sympathies and signatures of the prisoners, ISSUE: Whether or not the court is bound to rule on the
especially those who had pending cases in her sala. This Court petition despite the case being moot and academic
has consistently enjoined judges to avoid not just impropriety in
their conduct but even the mere appearance of impropriety6 HELD: NO. The trial court in its Order dated February 6, 2006
because the appearance of bias or prejudice can be damaging took note of the Sheriff’s return stating that the writ of
as actual bias or prejudice to the public’s confidence on the possession it issued to China Bank had been satisfied on April
Judiciary’s role in the administration of justice. To say the least, 15, 2005 after the petitioner had been successfully removed
using detention prisoners who had cases before Judge Soluren from the subject premises, prompting the court to declare that
cannot be countenanced. the petitioner’s Motion to Quash/Abate the Writ of Possession
has been rendered moot and academic. Indeed, with the writ of
__________________________________________________ possession having been served and satisfied, the said motions
2. Madriaga vs CBC had ceased to present a justiciable controversy, and a
declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.
DOCTRINE: Judicial power presupposes actual controversies, Judicial power presupposes actual controversies, the very
the very antithesis of mootness. Where there is no more live antithesis of mootness. Where there is no more live subject of
subject of controversy, the Court ceases to have a reason to controversy, the Court ceases to have a reason to render any
render any ruling or make any pronouncement. Courts ruling or make any pronouncement. Courts generally decline
generally decline jurisdiction on the ground of mootness – save jurisdiction on the ground of mootness – save when, among
when, among others, a compelling constitutional issue raised others, a compelling constitutional issue raised requires the
requires the formulation of controlling principles to guide the formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar
bench, the bar and the public; or when the case is capable of and the public; or when the case is capable of repetition yet
repetition yet evading judicial review, which are not extant in evading judicial review, which are not extant in this case.
this case.
__________________________________________________
FACTS: The spouses Rolando and Norma Trajano (Spouses
3. People vs Gutierrez
Trajano) were the original registered owners of the properties
in dispute – two residential properties located in Ibayo, Marilao, DOCTRINE: We must thus reject the idea that our courts,
Bulacan, covered by TCT Nos. 114853(M) and 114854(M). faced by an impasse of the kind now before Us, are to confess
Sometime in 1991, they agreed to sell the properties to the themselves impotent to further the cause of justice. The
petitioner’s father, Cesar Madriaga, Sr. (Madriaga, Sr.) for Constitution has vested the Judicial Power in the Supreme
P1,300,000.00 payable on installment basis. Upon completion Court and such inferior courts as may be established by law
of payment,4 Spouses Trajano executed in Madriaga, Sr.’s (Article VIII, Section 13), and such judicial power connotes
favor a Deed of Absolute Sale. Spouses Trajano, however, certain incidental and inherent attributes reasonably necessary
failed to deliver the lot titles, so Madriaga, Sr. sued for specific for an effective administration of justice. The courts "can by
performance with the RTC Branch 19 of Malolos City. The appropriate means do all things necessary to preserve and
parties later entered into a compromise agreement, which the maintain every quality needful to make the judiciary an
court approved. On motion of Madriaga, Sr., the RTC issued a effective institution of government" (Borromeo vs. Mariano, 41
writ of execution on September 6, 1994, and several properties Phil. 322).
of Spouses Trajano were levied upon, including the disputed
properties. At the auction held on February 22, 1995, FACTS: In the morning of 22 May 1970, a group of armed
Madriaga, Sr. was declared the winning bidder, and a persons descended and burned inhabited houses in barrio Ora
certificate of sale was issued to him on. After the lapse of the Centro, municipality of Bantay, Province of Ilocos Sur, and in
one-year redemption period, he was issued a final deed of barrio Ora Este of the same municipality and province resulting
sale. On January 27, 1997, he secured an ex parte writ of in the destruction of various houses and in the death of an old
possession. woman. The respondents (17 identified together with 82
unidentified persons) herein were charged with arson with
Meanwhile, on January 2, 1995, Spouses Trajano obtained a homicide and arson. Subsequently, on 18 June 1970, the
loan from China Bank in the amount of P700,000.00, payable Secretary of Justice issued Administrative Order No. 226,
authorizing Judge Mario Gutierrez to transfer Criminal Cases 1) NO. We agree with respondents that the present laws do not
Nos. 47-V and 48-V to the Circuit Criminal Court, "in the confer upon the Secretary of Justice power to determine what
interest of justice and pursuant to Republic Act No. 5179. The court should hear specific cases. Any such power, even in the
prosecution moved the respondent judge for a transfer of guise of administrative regulation of executive affairs, trenches
cases 47-V and 48-V to the Circuit Criminal Court, invoking the upon the time-honored separation of the Executive and the
Administrative Orders just mentioned and calling attention to Judiciary; and while not directly depriving the courts of their
the circumstance that they were issued at the instance of the independence, it would endanger the rights and immunities of
witnesses seeking transfer of the hearing from Vigan to either the accused or civil party. It could be much too easily
San Fernando, La Union, or Baguio City, for reasons of transformed into a means of predetermining the outcome of
security and personal safety, and they can be free from tension individual cases, so as to produce a result in harmony with the
and terrorism as shown in their affidavits. Administration's preferences. The creation by Republic Act No.
5179 of the Circuit Criminal Courts for the purpose of
The accused vigorously opposed such transfer. In view of the alleviating the burden of the regular Courts of First Instance,
denial of the motion to transfer the cases to Circuit Criminal and to accelerate the disposition of criminal cases pending or
Court, the prosecution resorted to Us for writs of certiorari and to be filed therein, nowhere indicates an intent to permit the
mandamus, charging abuse of discretion and praying this transfer of preselected individual cases to the circuit courts
Court to set aside the order of denial of the transfer and to
compel the respondent Court of First Instance to remand the
cases to the Circuit Criminal Court of the Second Judicial
District, as well as to authorize the latter to try the cases (47-V 2) YES. In the particular case before Us, to compel the
and 48-V) at either San Fernando, La Union, or Baguio City. prosecution to proceed to trial in a locality where its witnesses
Respondents in their answer denied any abuse of discretion in will not be at liberty to reveal what they know is to make a
view of the fact that the Administrative Order No. 226 merely mockery of the judicial process, and to betray the very purpose
authorized the court below, but did not require or command it, for which courts have been established. Since the rigorous
to transfer the cases in question to the Circuit Criminal Court, application of the general principle of Rule 110, Section 14 (a),
and likewise denied that the circumstances justified any such would result here in preventing a fair and impartial inquiry into
transfer. [REASONS WHY THE COMPLAINANTS WOULD the actual facts of the case, it must be admitted that the
LIKE THE CASE TO BE TRANSFERRED TO A DIFFERENT exigencies of justice demand that the general rule relied upon
COURT (based on their affidavit):] of the one hundred armed by accused respondents should yield to occasional exceptions
participants in the burning of the houses at barrios Ora Este wherever there are weighty reasons therefor. Otherwise, the
and Ora Centro, Municipality of Bantay, some eighty-two (82) rigor of the law would become the highest injustice —
are still unidentified and at large; that one of the accused, "summum jus, summa in juria.‖ One of these incidental and
private respondent Vincent Crisologo, belongs to an influential inherent powers of courts is that of transferring the trial of
family in the province, being concededly the son of the cases from one court to another of equal rank in a neighboring
Congressman for the first district of Ilocos Sur and of the lady site, whenever the imperative of securing a fair and impartial
Governor that the reluctant witnesses are themselves the trial, or of preventing a miscarriage of justice, so demands.
complainants in the criminal cases, and, therefore, have This authority was early recognized in England as inhering in
reasons to fear that attempts will be made to silence them; that the courts of justice even prior to the eighteenth century.
it is not shown that the Executive branch is able or willing to
The opinion in Crocker vs. Justices of the Superior Court, 208
give these witnesses full security during the trial and for a
Mass. 162, 21 Ann. Cases 1067, has shown how the eminent
reasonable time thereafter, that even if armed security escorts
Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, in Rex vs. Cowle (Eng.) 2 Burr
were to be provided, the same would be no guarantee against
834, decided in 1759, said that, in this respect, "the law is clear
the possibility of murderous assault against the affiant
and uniform as far back as it can be traced.‖ That this
witnesses, as recent events have proved; that Constabulary
Supreme Court, in the exercise of the Judicial Power vested by
reports show that between 1 January and 31 May 1970 no less
the Constitution upon it and other statutory Courts, possesses
than 78 murders have been reported committed in said
inherent power and jurisdiction to decree that the trial and
province, of which number only 21 were solved; and, finally,
disposition of a case pending in a Court of First Instance be
that the promotion and confirmation of respondent Judge Mario
transferred to another Court of First Instance within the same
Gutierrez from Clerk of Court to Judge of the Court of First
district whenever the interest of justice and truth so demand,
Instance of the Second Judicial District, Branch III, was actively
and there are serious and weighty reasons to believe that a
supported by Congressman and Governor Crisologo, parents
trial by the court that originally had jurisdiction over the case
of accused Vincent Crisologo.
would not result in a fair and impartial trial and lead to a
miscarriage of justice.
ISSUE: __________________________________________________
1) Whether or not the Secretary of Justice has power to 4. In Re: Atty. Marcial Edillon
determine what court should hear specific cases.
FACTS:
2) whether or not case can be heard in a different court in the
The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing
interest of justice and truth
attorney in the Philippines. On November 1975, the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) unanimously recommended to the
Court the removal of the name of Edillon from its Roll of
HELD:
Attorneys for “stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues” to 4. Relative to the issue of the power and/or jurisdiction of
the IBP notwithstanding multiple due notices sent to him. the Supreme Court to strike the name of a lawyer from its Roll
of Attorneys, it is sufficient to state that the matters of
ISSUES: admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of
lawyers and their regulation and supervision have been and
1. WHETHER THE COURT IS WITHOUT POWER TO
are indisputably recognized as inherent judicial functions and
COMPEL HIM TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE
responsibilities, and the authorities holding such are legion.
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES.
Respondent Marcial A. Edillon is disbarred, and his name was
2. WHETHER THE PROVISION OF THE COURT RULE
ordered to be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys of the Court.
REQUIRING PAYMENT OF A MEMBERSHIP FEE IS
VOID. __________________________________________________
3. WHETHER THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE 5. Maturan vs Gutierrez-Torres
PENALTY PROVISIONS WOULD AMOUNT TO A
DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE DOCTRINE: A judge must exert every effort to timely rule upon
PROCESS AND HENCE INFRINGES ON ONE OF a case submitted for decision. If she thinks that she would
HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. need a period to decide a case or to resolve an issue longer
than what the Constitution prescribes, she may request an
4. WHETHER THE POWER OF SC TO STRIKE THE extension from the Court to avoid administrative sanctions.
NAME OF A LAWYER FROM ITS ROLL OF
ATTORNEYS IS VALID. FACTS: Atty. Arturo Juanito T. Maturan, the counsel for the
private complainant in Criminal Case No. 67659 entitled
HELD: People v. Anicia C. Ventanilla, filed a sworn complaint against
Judge Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres, the former Presiding Judge
1. To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar
of Branch 60 of the Metropolitan Trial Court in Mandaluyong
is not violative of Edillon’s constitutional freedom to associate.
City, charging her with unjustifiably delaying the rendition of the
Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with
decision in his client's criminal case. Atty. Maturan averred that
anyone. He is free to attend or not attend the meetings of his
the criminal case had remained pending and unresolved
Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections
despite its having been submitted for decision since June
as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected
2002. Atty. Maturan stated that Judge Gutierrez-Torres' failure
is the payment of annual dues. The Supreme Court, in order to
to render the judgment within the 90-day period from
further the State’s legitimate interest in elevating the quality of
submission of the case for decision violated Canon 3, Rule
professional legal services, may require that the cost of
3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Constitution, and
improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the
constituted gross inefficiency.
subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program — the
lawyers. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed Judge
Gutierrez-Torres through its first indorsement of the complaint
But, assuming that the questioned provision does in a sense
to submit her comment, and also to show cause why no
compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar, such
disciplinary action should be taken against her for her violation
compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the
of her professional responsibility. Judge Gutierrez-Torres
State.
implored the OCA to grant her a 20- day extension of the
2. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the Court, to period within which to submit her comment. Despite her
promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of request being granted, she failed to submit a comment. The
law and the integration of the Philippine Bar (Article X, Section records show that Judge Gutierrez-Torres sought four more
5 of the 1973 Constitution) — from requiring members of a extensions of the period within which to submit a comment;
privileged class, such as lawyers are, to pay a reasonable fee and that the Court granted her further requests.
toward defraying the expenses of regulation of the profession Notwithstanding the liberality of the Court in granting several
to which they belong. It is quite apparent that the fee is indeed extensions, she still did not submit a comment. Thus, OCA
imposed as a regulatory measure, designed to raise funds for recommended that Judge Gutierrez-Torres be administratively
carrying out the objectives and purposes of integration. sanctioned.
3. Whether the practice of law is a property right, the ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Gutierrez-Torres must be
respondent’s right to practice law before the courts of this sanctioned?
country should be and is a matter subject to regulation and
RULING: YES. Article VIII, Section 15 (1) of the 1987
inquiry. And, if the power to impose the fee as a regulatory
Constitution requires that all cases or matters filed after the
measure is recognize, then a penalty designed to enforce its
effectivity of the Constitution must be decided or resolved
payment, which penalty may be avoided altogether by
within twenty-four months from date of submission for the
payment, is not void as unreasonable or arbitrary.
Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court,
But it must be emphasized that the practice of law is not a twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months
property right but a mere privilege, and as such must bow to for all other lower courts.
the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance
Thereby, the Constitution mandates all justices and judges to
with the lawyer’s public responsibilities.
be efficient and speedy in the disposition of the cases or
matters pending in their courts. Reiterating the mandate, the
New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary
requires judges to "devote their professional activity to judicial bench, are under its exclusive supervision and control.
duties, which include . . . the performance of judicial functions
and responsibilities in court and the making of decisions . . .," The Office of the Ombudsman denied the motion stating that it
and to "perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of is within its jurisdiction to investigate on the criminal charges.
reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable
promptness."
Issue:
Likewise, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
imposes on all judges the duty to dispose of their courts' Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman
business promptly and to decide cases within the required should defer action on the case pending resolution of the
periods. These judicial canons directly demand efficiency from administrative case
the judges in obvious recognition of the right of the public to
the speedy disposition of their cases. In such context, the
saying justice delayed is justice denied becomes a true Held:
encapsulation of the felt need for efficiency and promptness
among judges. Yes. Under Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is the
Supreme Court which is vested with exclusive administrative
All judges should be mindful of the duty to decide promptly, supervision over all courts and its personnel. Prescinding from
knowing that the public's faith and confidence in the Judiciary this premise, the Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and
are no less at stake if they should ignore such duty. They must by itself whether a criminal complaint against a judge, or court
always be aware that upon each time a delay occurs in the employee, involves an administrative matter. The Ombudsman
disposition of cases, their stature as judicial officers and the is duty bound to have all cases against judges and court
respect for their position diminish. The reputation of the entire personnel filed before it, referred to the Supreme Court for
Judiciary, of which they are among the pillars, is also thereby determination as to whether and administrative aspect is
undeservedly tarnished. A judge like Judge Gutierrez-Torres involved therein. This rule should hold true regardless of
should be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility whether an administrative case based on the act subject of the
in the discharge of the obligation to promptly administer justice. complaint before the Ombudsman is already pending with the
She must cultivate a capacity for promptly rendering her Court. For, aside from the fact that the Ombudsman would not
decisions. Should she anticipate that she would need a period know of this matter unless he is informed of it, he should give
longer than what the Constitution and the issuances of the due respect for and recognition of the administrative authority
Court prescribe within which to render her decision or of the Court.
resolution, she should request a proper extension of the period
from the Court, through the OCA, and lay out in the request the The Ombudsman cannot dictate to, and bind the Court, to its
justification for her inability. Yet, she did not at all do so in the findings that a case before it does or does not have
Criminal Case. She was clearly guilty of gross inefficiency, administrative implications. To do so is to deprive the Court of
especially because her inability to decide the case within the the exercise of its administrative prerogatives and to arrogate
required period became absolutely devoid of excuse after she unto itself a power not constitutionally sanctioned. This is a
did not bother to proffer any explanation for her inability. dangerous policy which impinges, as it does, on judicial
independence.
__________________________________________________
Motion for Reconsideration (MFR) of the order of Judge Garcia Article VIII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution mandates that
were filed and submitted for resolution and hearing was set. "all cases or matters filed after the effectivity of the Constitution
But no hearing happened. A second MFR was filed and the must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from
same was set for hearing. Up to the present, after the lapse of date of submission for the SC, and, unless reduced by the SC,
one (1) year, nine (9) months and fourteen (14) days, no notice twelve months for all collegiate courts, and three months for all
of resolution on our Motion for Reconsideration was sent to his other courts."
counsel or tocomplainant. Any motion, regardless of whether
the motions were frivolous or dilatory, and not germane to the In relation thereto, SC Administrative Circular No. 13-87
pending case respondent judge should have resolved the provides that "judges shall observe scrupulously the periods
same citing the facts and the law on which the order was prescribed by Article VIII, Section 15 of the Constitution for the
based within the time prescribed by the rules (Aries vs. Beldia, adjudication and resolution of all cases or matters submitted in
476 SCRA 298). OCA recommended that Judge Garcia be their courts. Thus, all cases or matters must be decided or
administratively liable for the delay. However, before acting resolved within twelve months from date of submission by all
upon OCA’s report, complainant withdrew his complaint. lower collegiate courts while all other lower courts are given a
period of three months to do so."
ISSUE: WON Respondent Judge is liable for the delay in
resolving the MFR Judge Garcia failed to meet this three-month deadline. He
explained his delay by saying that "the Motion for
HELD: YES. Hebron’s withdrawal of his complaint against Reconsideration was inadvertently not acted upon by the Court
Judge Garcia does not necessarily warrant its dismissal. In for an unreasonable length of time," because it noticed its
Bayaca v. Ramos we explained: We have repeatedly ruled in a pendency only when it conducted an inventory of its cases in
number of cases that mere desistance or recantation by the July 2011. Unfortunately for Judge Garcia, such poor excuse
complainant does not necessarily result in the dismissal of an merits no weight for his exoneration from the charge. It, in fact,
administrative complaint against any member of the bench. demonstrates serious errors in Judge Garcia’s performance of
his duties and the management of his court.
The withdrawal of complaints cannot divest the Court of its
jurisdiction nor strip it of its power to determine the veracity of For such error, even Judge Garcia has admitted that the delay
the charges made and to discipline, such as the results of its in resolving the motion to reconsider has dragged on for an
investigation may warrant, an erring respondent. Administrative "unreasonable length of time." Furthermore, we observe that
actions cannot depend on the will or pleasure of the he should have been prompted to take immediate action by the
complainant who may, for reasons of his own, condone what two motions to resolve that were filed by Hebron, yet even
may be detestable. Neither can the Court be bound by the these two motions remained unacted upon. To the Court, the
unilateral act of the complainant in a matter relating to its volume of Judge Garcia’s pending cases did not justify the
disciplinary power. The Court’s interest in the affairs of the delay. The failure to decide cases and other matters within the
judiciary is of paramount concern. x x x. reglementary period of ninety (90) days constitutes gross
inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative the recommendation of the OCA, referred the matter to the
sanction against the erring judge. This is not only a blatant Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation.
transgression of the Constitution but also of the Code of Thereafter, the CA, recommended the dismissal of the charges
Judicial Conduct, which enshrines the significant duty of against Judge Balut for failure of the OCA to clearly
magistrates to decide cases promptly. substantiate and prove the participation of Judge Balut in the
financial transactions of the courts. On his admission that he
________________________________________________ borrowed money from the judiciary fund, the CA opined that
Judge Balut could no longer be penalized as he was previously
10. Office of the Court Administrator vs Balut
fined by the Court in its previous resolution.
Facts
In any event, it must be stressed that appellant’s conviction But petitioners claim that the means adopted by the cybercrime
was not based solely on his extrajudicial confession. The law for regulating undesirable cyberspace activities violate
prosecution likewise presented the eyewitness account of certain of their constitutional rights.
Azucena who testified that immediately after hearing gunshots,
he saw appellant about 5 meters away from the Isuzu pick-up Pending hearing and adjudication of the issues presented in
of the victim. Appellant was riding in tandem aboard a black these cases, on February 5, 2013, the Court extended the
motorcycle and was holding a gun. The ballistic report also original 120-day temporary restraining order (TRO) that it
confirmed that the slugs found at the crime scene were fired earlier issued on October 9, 2012, enjoining respondent
from the firearm earlier confiscated from the appellant. government agencies from implementing the cybercrime law
Moreover, appellant was not able to establish that it was until further orders.
physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene
at the time of its commission.
Issues:
_________________________________________________
1. The petitioners contend that Section 4(a)(1) fails to
13. Disini Jr. vs Secretary of Justice
meet the strict scrutiny standard required of laws that
POLITICAL LAW; CONGRESS EXCLUSIVELY HAS THE interfere with the fundamental rights of the people. Is
POWER TO FIX THE PENALTIES. The Court had ample Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access unconstitutional?
opportunity to consider the proposition that Section 6 violates
2. Petitioners claim that Section 4(a)(3) suffers from
the equal protection clause via the parties’ pleadings, oral
overbreadth in that, while is seeks to discourage data
arguments, and memoranda. But, as the Decision stressed,
interference, it intrudes into the area of protected
the power to fix the penalties for violations of penal laws, like
speech and expression, creating a chilling and
the cybercrime law, exclusively belongs to Congress.
deterrent effect on these guaranteed freedoms.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; LIBEL IS NOT A PROTECTED
3. Petitioners claim that Section 4(a)(6) or cyber-
SPEECH. The majority of the movants believe that the Court’s
squatting violates the equal protection clause in that,
decision upholding the constitutionality of Section 4(c)(4),
not being narrowly tailored, it will cause a user using
which penalizes online libel, effectively tramples upon the right
his real name to suffer the same fate as those who
to free expression.1âwphi1 But libel is not a protected speech.
use aliases or take the name of another in satire,
There is no freedom to unjustly destroy the reputation of a
parody, or any other literary device.
decent woman by publicly claiming that she is a paid prostitute.
4. Petitioners claim that Section 4(b)(3) violates the
Facts:
constitutional rights to due process and to privacy and
These consolidated petitions seek to declare several correspondence, and transgresses the freedom of the
provisions of Republic Act (RA) 10175, the Cybercrime press.
Prevention Act of 2012, unconstitutional and void.
5. Petitioners claim that cybersex violates the freedom of
The cybercrime law aims to regulate access to and use of the expression clause of the Constitution.
cyberspace. The cyberspace is a boon to the need of a current
6. Petitioners are wary that a person who merely
generation for greater information and facility of
doodles on paper and imagines a sexual abuse of a
communication. But all is not well with the system since it could
16-year old is not criminally liable for producing child
not filter out a number of persons of ill will who would want to
pornography but one who formulates the idea on his
use cyberspace technology for mischiefs and crimes. One of
laptop would be.
them can, for instance, avail himself of the system to unjustly
ruin the reputation of another or bully the latter by posting 7. Is Section 4(c)(3) unconstitutional for penalizing the
defamatory statements against him that people can read. transmission of unsolicited commercial
communications?
And because linking with the internet opens up a user to
communication from others, the ill-motivated can use the 8. Petitioners dispute the constitutionality of both the
cyberspace for committing theft by hacking into or penal code provisions on libel as well as
surreptitiously accessing his bank account or credit card or Section4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act on
defrauding him through false representations. cyberlibel.
13. Is Section 12 on Real-Time collection of traffic data 3. No, the challenge to the constitutionality of Section
valid and constitutional? 4(a)(6) is baseless. The law is reasonable in
penalizing the act of acquiring the domain name in
14. Is Section 13 on preservation of computer data valid bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy reputation, or
and constitutional? deprive others who are not ill-motivated of the rightful
opportunity of registering the same. It is the evil
15. Is Section 14 on disclosure of computer data valid
purpose for which one uses the name that the law
and constitutional?
condemns.
16. Is Section 15 on search, seizure and examination of
4. No. In assessing the challenge that the State has
computer data valid and constitutional?
impermissibly intruded into these zones of privacy, a
17. Is Section 17 on destruction of computer data valid court must determine whether a person has exhibited
and constitutional? a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so,
whether that expectation has been violated by
18. Is Section 19 on restricting or blocking access to unreasonable government intrusion. The law
computer data valid and constitutional? punishes those who acquire or use identifying
information without right, implicitly to cause damage.
19. Is Section 20 on obstruction of justice valid and Petitioners fail to show how government effort to curb
constitutional? computer-related identity theft violates the right to
privacy and correspondence as well as the right to
20. Is Section 24 on Cybercrime Investigation and
due process. There is no fundamental right to acquire
Coordinating Center (CICC) valid and constitutional?
another’s personal right. The Court has defined intent
21. Is Section 26(a) on CICC’s power and functions valid to gain as an internal act which can be established
and constitutional? through overt acts of the offender, and it may be
presumed from the furtive taking of useful property
pertaining to another, unless special circumstances
reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator.
Ruling:
As such, the press, whether in the quest of news
1. No. The strict scrutiny standard, an American reporting or social investigation, has nothing to fear
constitutional construct, is useful in determining the since a special circumstance is present to negate
constitutionality of laws that tend to target a class of intent to gain which is required by this Section.
things or persons. According to this standard, a
5. The Court will not declare Section 4(c)(1)
legislative classification that impermissibly interferes
unconstitutional where it stands a construction that
with the exercise of fundamental right or operates to
makes it apply only to persons engaged in the
the peculiar class disadvantage of a suspect class is business of maintaining, controlling, or operating,
presumed unconstitutional. The Court finds nothing in directly or indirectly, the lascivious exhibition of sexual
Section 4(a)(1) that calls for the application of the organs or sexual activity with the aid of a computer
strict scrutiny standard since no fundamental system as Congress has intended.
freedom, like speech, is involved in punishing what is
essentially a condemnable act – accessing the 6. The constitutionality of Section 4(c)(3) is not
computer system of another without right. It is a successfully challenged. The law makes the penalty
universally condemnable act. higher by one degree when the crime is committed in
cyberspace. But no one can complain since the
2. Under the overbreadth doctrine, a proper intensity or duration of penalty is a legislative
governmental purpose, constitutionally subject to prerogative and there is a rational basis for such
state regulation, may not be achieved by means that higher penalty.
unnecessarily sweep its subject broadly, thereby
invading the area of protected speech. Section 4(a)(3) 7. Yes, because to prohibit the transmission of
does not encroach on these freedoms at all. It simply unsolicited ads would deny a person the right to read
punishes what essentially is a form of vandalism, the his emails, even unsolicited commercial ads
act of wilfully destroying without right the things that addressed to him. Commercial speech is a separate
belong to others, in this case their computer data,
category of speech which us not accorded the same 11. The Court resolves to leave the determination of the
level of protection as that given to other correct application of Section 7 that authorizes
constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression but is prosecution of the offender under both the Revised
nonetheless entitled to protection. The State cannot Penal Code and Republic Act 10175 to actual cases,
rob him of this right without violating the with the exception of the crimes of:
constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.
Thus, unsolicited advertisements are legitimate forms 1.
of expression.
1. Online libel as to which, charging
8. Since the penal code and implicitly, the cybercrime the offender under both Section
law, mainly target libel against private persons, the 4(c)(4) of Republic Act 10175 and
Court recognizes that these laws imply a stricter Article 353 of the Revised Penal
standard of malice to convict the author of a Code constitutes a violation of the
defamatory statement where the offended party is a proscription against double
public figure. The elements of libel are: (a) the jeopardy; as well as
allegation of a discreditable act or condition
2. Child pornography committed
concerning another; (b) publication of the charge; (c)
online as to which, charging the
identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence
offender under both Section 4(c)(2)
of malice.There is actual malice or malice in fact when
of Republic Act 10175 and Republic
the offender makes the defamatory statement with the
Act 9775 or the Anti-Child
knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of
Pornography Act of 2009 also
whether it was false or not. The reckless disregard
constitutes a violation of the same
standard used here required a high degree of
proscription, and, in respect to
awareness of probable falsity. There must be
these, is void and unconstitutional.
sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the
accused in fact entertained serious doubts as to the 12. Valid and constitutional, because the matter of fixing
truth of the statement he published. Gross or even penalties for the commission of crimes is as a rule a
extreme negligence is not sufficient to establish actual legislative prerogative.
malice. The defense of absence of actual malice,
even when the statement turns out to be false, is 13. Void and unconstitutional, because Section 12 does
available where the offended party is a public official not permit law enforcement authorities to look into the
or a public figure. But, where the offended party is a contents of the messages and uncover the identities
private individual, the prosecution need not prove the of the sender and the recipient. Thus, the authority
presence of actual malice. For his defense, the that Section 12 gives law enforcement agencies is too
accused must show that he has a justifiable reason sweeping and lacks restraint.
for the defamatory statement even if it was in fact
14. Valid and constitutional, because the user ought to
true.
have kept a copy of that data when it crossed his
9. A governmental purpose, which seeks to regulate the computer if he was so minded. There was no undue
use of cyberspace communication technology to deprivation of property since the data that service
protect a person’s reputation and peace of mind, providers preserve on orders of law enforcement
cannot adopt means that will unnecessarily and authorities are not made accessible to users by
broadly sweep, invading the area of protected reasons of the issuance of such orders.
freedoms. If such means are adopted, self-inhibition
15. Valid and constitutional, because what Section 14
borne of fear of what sinister predicaments await
envisions is merely the enforcement of a duly issued
internet users will suppress otherwise robust
court warrant. Disclosure can be made only after
discussion of public issues. Democracy will be
judicial intervention.
threatened and with it, all liberties. Penal laws should
provide reasonably clear guidelines for law 16. Valid and constitutional, because Section 15 merely
enforcement officials and triers of facts to prevent enumerates the duties of law enforcement authorities
arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The terms that would ensure proper collection, preservation, and
“aiding or abetting” constitute broad sweep that use of computer system or data that have been
generates chilling effect on those who express seized by virtue of a court warrant.
themselves through cyberspace posts, comments,
and other messages. Hence, Section 5 of the 17. Valid and constitutional, because it is unclear that the
cybercrime law that punishes “aiding or abetting” libel user has a demandable right to require the service
on the cyberspace is a nullity. provider to have that copy of data saved indefinitely
for him in its storage system.
10. Yes, because there exists a substantial distinction
between crimes committed through the use of 18. Void and unconstitutional, because Section 19 not
information and communication technology and only precludes any judicial intervention but it also
similar crimes committed using other means. In using disregards jurisprudential guidelines established to
the technology in question, the offender often evades determine the validity of restrictions on speech.
identification and is able to reach far more victims or
cause greater harm.
19. Valid and constitutional insofar as it applies to the all of those files,” and that the clearance issued by UP HRDO
provisions of Chapter IV which are not struck down by and CSC should be taken in her favor. There was no record
the Court. that the letter was deliberated upon. Despite this, on a report to
the JBC, Sereno was said to have “complete requirements.”
20. and 21. Valid and constitutional, because cybercrime On August 2012, Sereno was appointed Chief Justice.
law is complete in itself when it directed the CICC to
formulate and implement a national cybersecurity On August 2017, an impeachment complaint was filed by Atty.
plan. The law gave sufficient standards for the CICC Larry Gadon against Sereno, alleging that Sereno failed to
to follow when it provided a definition of cybersecurity. make truthful declarations in her SALNs. The House of
Representatives proceeded to hear the case for determination
__________________________________________________ of probable cause, and it was said that Justice Peralta, the
chairman of the JBC then, was not made aware of the
14. Republic vs Sereno
incomplete SALNs of Sereno. Other findings were made: such
DOCTRINE OF THE CASE: as pieces of jewelry amounting to P15,000, that were not
declared on her 1990 SALN, but was declared in prior years’
Quo warranto as a remedy to oust an ineligible public official and subsequent years’ SALNs, failure of her husband to sign
may be availed of when the subject act or omission was one SALN, execution of the 1998 SALN only in 2003
committed prior to or at the time of appointment or election
relating to an official’s qualifications to hold office as to render On February 2018, Atty. Eligio Mallari wrote to the OSG,
such appointment or election invalid. Acts or omissions, even if requesting that the latter, in representation of the Republic,
it relates to the qualification of integrity being a continuing initiate a quo warranto proceeding against Sereno. The OSG,
requirement but nonetheless committed during the incumbency invoking the Court’s original jurisdiction under Section 5(1),
of a validly appointed and/or validly elected official cannot be Article VIII of the Constitution in relation to the special civil
the subject of a quo warranto proceeding, but of impeachment action under Rule 66, the Republic, through the OSG filed the
if the public official concerned is impeachable and the act or petition for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of quo
omission constitutes an impeachable offense, or to disciplinary, warranto to declare as void Sereno’s appointment as CJ of the
administrative or criminal action, if otherwise. SC and to oust and altogether exclude Sereno
therefrom. [yourlawyersays]
FACTS:
Capistrano, Sen. De Lima, Sen. Trillianes, et. al., intervened.
From 1986 to 2006, Sereno served as a member of the faculty Sereno then filed a Motion for Inhibition against AJ Bersamin,
of the University of the Philippines-College of Law. While being Peralta, Jardeleza, Tijam, and Leonardo-De Castro, imputing
employed at the UP Law, or from October 2003 to 2006, actual bias for having testified against her on the impeachment
Sereno was concurrently employed as legal counsel of the hearing before the House of Representatives.
Republic in two international arbitrations known as the PIATCO
cases, and a Deputy Commissioner of the Commissioner on Contentions:
Human Rights.
Office of the Solicitor General (petitioner):
The Human Resources Development Office of UP (UP HRDO)
OSG argues that the quo warranto is an available remedy
certified that there was no record on Sereno’s file of any
because what is being sought is to question the validity of her
permission to engage in limited practice of profession.
appointment, while the impeachment complaint accuses her of
Moreover, out of her 20 years of employment, only nine (9)
committing culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal
Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) were
of public trust while in office, citing Funa v. Chairman Villar,
on the records of UP HRDO. In a manifestation, she attached a
Estrada v. Desierto and Nacionalista Party v. De Vera. OSG
copy of a tenth SALN, which she supposedly sourced from the
maintains that the phrase “may be removed from office” in
“filing cabinets” or “drawers of UP”. The Ombudsman likewise
Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution means that Members of
had no record of any SALN filed by Sereno. The JBC has
the SC may be removed through modes other than
certified to the existence of one SALN. In sum, for 20 years of
impeachment.
service, 11 SALNs were recovered.
OSG contends that it is seasonably filed within the one-year
On August 2010, Sereno was appointed as Associate Justice.
reglementary period under Section 11, Rule 66 since Sereno’s
On 2012, the position of Chief Justice was declared vacant,
transgressions only came to light during the impeachment
and the JBC directed the applicants to submit documents,
proceedings. Moreover, OSG claims that it has an
among which are “all previous SALNs up to December 31,
imprescriptible right to bring a quo warranto petition under the
2011” for those in the government and “SALN as of December
maxim nullum tempus occurit regi (“no time runs against the
31, 2011” for those from the private sector. The JBC
king”) or prescription does not operate against the government.
announcement further provided that “applicants with
The State has a continuous interest in ensuring that those who
incomplete or out-of-date documentary requirements will not
partake of its sovereign powers are qualified. Even assuming
be interviewed or considered for nomination.” Sereno
that the one-year period is applicable to the OSG, considering
expressed in a letter to JBC that since she resigned from UP
that SALNs are not published, the OSG will have no other
Law on 2006 and became a private practitioner, she was
means by which to know the disqualification.
treated as coming from the private sector and only submitted
three (3) SALNs or her SALNs from the time she became an Moreover, OSG maintains that the SC has jurisdiction, citing
Associate Justice. Sereno likewise added that “considering that A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC which created a permanent Committee
most of her government records in the academe are more than on Ethics and Ethical Standards, tasked to investigate
15 years old, it is reasonable to consider it infeasible to retrieve
complaints involving graft and corruption and ethical violations Congress’ “check” on the SC through impeachment would be
against members of the SC and contending that this is not a rendered inutile.
political question because such issue may be resolved through
the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, laws, Furthermore, Sereno argues that it is already time-barred.
JBC rules, and Canons of Judicial Ethics. Section 11, Rule 66 provides that a petition for quo
warranto must be filed within one (1) year from the “cause of
OSG seeks to oust Sereno from her position as CJ on the ouster” and not from the “discovery” of the disqualification.
ground that Sereno failed to show that she is a person of
proven integrity which is an indispensable qualification for Moreover, Sereno contends that the Court cannot presume
membership in the Judiciary under Section 7(3), Article VIII of that she failed to file her SALNs because as a public officer,
the Constitution. According to the OSG, because OSG failed to she enjoys the presumption that her appointment to office was
fulfill the JBC requirement of filing the complete SALNs, her regular. OSG failed to overcome the presumption created by
integrity remains unproven. The failure to submit her SALN, the certifications from UP HRDO that she had been cleared of
which is a legal obligation, should have disqualified Sereno all administrative responsibilities and charges. Her integrity is a
from being a candidate; therefore, she has no right to hold the political question which can only be decided by the JBC and
office. Good faith cannot be considered as a defense since the the President.
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA No. 3019) and Code
Regarding her missing SALNs, Sereno contends that the fact
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
that SALNs are missing cannot give rise to the inference that
Employees (RA No. 6713) are special laws and are thus
they are not filed. The fact that 11 SALNs were filed should
governed by the concept of malum prohibitum, wherein malice
give an inference to a pattern of filing, not of non-filing.
or criminal intent is completely immaterial.
Intervenors’ arguments:
Sereno (respondent):
The intervenors argue that it is not incumbent upon Sereno to
Sereno contends that an impeachable officer may only be
prove to the JBC that she possessed the integrity required by
ousted through impeachment, citing Section 2 of Article XI of
the Constitution; rather, the onus of determining whether or not
the Constitution, and Mayor Lecaroz v.
she qualified for the post fell upon the JBC. Moreover,
Sandiganbayan, Cuenca v. Hon. Fernan, In Re: First
submission of SALNs is not a constitutional requirement; what
lndorsement from Hon. Gonzales, and Re: Complaint-Affidavit
is only required is the imprimatur of the JBC. The intervenors
for Disbarment Against SAJ Antonio T. Carpio. Sereno
likewise contend that “qualifications” such as citizenship, age,
contends that the clear intention of the framers of the
and experience are enforceable while “characteristics” such as
Constitution was to create an exclusive category of public
competence, integrity, probity, and independence are mere
officers who can be removed only by impeachment and not
subjective considerations.
otherwise. Impeachment was chosen as the method of
removing certain high-ranking government officers to shield ISSUES:
them from harassment suits that will prevent them from
performing their functions which are vital to the continued Preliminary issues:
operations of government. Sereno further argues that the word
1. Whether the Court should entertain the motion for
“may” on Section 2 of Article XI only qualifies the penalty
intervention
imposable after the impeachment trial, i.e., removal from office.
Sereno contends that the since the mode is wrong, the SC has 2. Whether the Court should grant the motion for the
no jurisdiction. inhibition of Sereno against five Justices
Sereno likewise argues that the cases cited by OSG is not in Main Issues:
all fours with the present case because the President and the
Vice President may, in fact, be removed by means other than 3. Whether the Court can assume jurisdiction and give
impeachment on the basis of Section 4, Article VII of the 1987 due course to the instant petition for quo warranto.
Constitution vesting in the Court the power to be the “sole
judge” of all contests relating to the qualifications of the 4. Whether Sereno may be the respondent in a quo
President and the Vice-President. There is no such provision warranto proceeding notwithstanding the fact that an
for other impeachable officers. Moreover, on the rest of the impeachment complaint has already been filed with
cases cited by the OSG, there is no mention that quo the House of Representatives.
warranto may be allowed.
5. Whether Sereno, who is an impeachable officer, can
Sereno also argues that since a petition for quo warranto may be the respondent in a quo warranto proceeding, i.e.,
be filed before the RTC, such would result to a conundrum whether the only way to remove an impeachable
because a judge of lower court would have effectively officer is impeachment.
exercised disciplinary power and administrative supervision
6. Whether to take cognizance of the quo warranto
over an official of the Judiciary much higher in rank and is
proceeding is violative of the principle of separation of
contrary to Sections 6 and 11, Article VIII of the Constitution
powers
which vests upon the SC disciplinary and administrative power
over all courts and the personnel thereof. 7. Whether the petition is outrightly dismissible on the
ground of prescription
Sereno likewise posits that if a Member of the SC can be
ousted through quo warranto initiated by the OSG, the 8. Whether the determination of a candidate’s eligibility
for nomination is the sole and exclusive function of
the JBC and whether such determination. partakes of free, disinterested, impartial and independent in handling the
the character of a political question outside the case must be balanced with the latter’s sacred duty to decide
Court’s supervisory and review powers; cases without fear of repression. Bias must be proven with
clear and convincing evidence. Those justices who were
9. Whether the filing of SALN is a constitutional and present at the impeachment proceedings were armed with the
statutory requirement for the position of Chief Justice. requisite imprimatur of the Court En Banc, given that the
Members are to testify only on matters within their personal
10. If answer to ninth issue is in the affirmative, whether
knowledge. The mere imputation of bias or partiality is not
Sereno failed to file her SALNs as mandated by the
enough ground for inhibition, especially when the charge is
Constitution and required by the law and its
without basis. There must be acts or conduct clearly indicative
implementing rules and regulations
of arbitrariness or prejudice before it can brand them with the
11. If answer to ninth issue is in the affirmative, whether stigma of bias or partiality. Sereno’s call for inhibition has been
Sereno filed SALNs are not filed properly and based on speculations, or on distortions of the language,
promptly. context and meaning of the answers the Justices may have
given as sworn witnesses in the proceedings before the
12. Whether Sereno failed to comply with the submission House.
of SALNs as required by the JBC
Moreover, insinuations that the Justices of the SC are towing
13. If answer to the twelfth issue is in the affirmative, the line of President Duterte in entertaining the quo
whether the failure to submit SALNs to the JBC voids warranto petition must be struck for being unfounded and for
the nomination and appointment of Sereno as Chief sowing seeds of mistrust and discordance between the Court
Justice; and the public. The Members of the Court are beholden to no
one, except to the sovereign Filipino people who ordained and
14. In case of a finding that Sereno is ineligible to hold the
promulgated the Constitution. It is thus inappropriate to
position of Chief Justice, whether the subsequent
misrepresent that the SolGen who has supposedly met
nomination by the JBC and the appointment by the
consistent litigation success before the SG shall likewise
President cured such ineligibility.
automatically and positively be received in the present quo
15. Whether Sereno is a de jure or a de facto officer. warranto action. As a collegial body, the Supreme Court
adjudicates without fear or favor. The best person to determine
[READ: Justice Leonen’s dissenting opinion: Q&A Format] the propriety of sitting in a case rests with the magistrate
sought to be disqualified. [yourlawyersays]
HELD:
Anent the third issue: A quo warranto petition is allowed
Anent the first issue: The intervention is improper. against impeachable officials and SC has jurisdiction.
Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, not originally The SC have concurrent jurisdiction with the CA and RTC to
impleaded in the proceedings, becomes a litigant therein for a issue the extraordinary writs, including quo warranto. A direct
certain purpose: to enable the third party to protect or preserve invocation of the SC’s original jurisdiction to issue such writs is
a right or interest that may be affected by those proceedings. allowed when there are special and important reasons therefor,
The remedy of intervention is not a matter of right but rests on and in this case, direct resort to SC is justified considering that
the sound discretion of the court upon compliance with the first the action is directed against the Chief Justice. Granting that
requirement on legal interest and the second requirement the petition is likewise of transcendental importance and has
that no delay and prejudice should result. The justification of far-reaching implications, the Court is empowered to exercise
one’s “sense of patriotism and their common desire to protect its power of judicial review. To exercise restraint in reviewing
and uphold the Philippine Constitution”, and that of the Senator an impeachable officer’s appointment is a clear renunciation of
De Lima’s and Trillanes’ intervention that their would-be a judicial duty. an outright dismissal of the petition based on
participation in the impeachment trial as Senators-judges if the speculation that Sereno will eventually be tried on
articles of impeachment will be filed before the Senate as the impeachment is a clear abdication of the Court’s duty to settle
impeachment court will be taken away is not sufficient. The actual controversy squarely presented before it. Quo
interest contemplated by law must be actual, substantial, warranto proceedings are essentially judicial in character – it
material, direct and immediate, and not simply contingent or calls for the exercise of the Supreme Court’s constitutional duty
expectant. Moreover, the petition of quo warranto is brought in and power to decide cases and settle actual controversies.
the name of the Republic. It is vested in the people, and not in This constitutional duty cannot be abdicated or transferred in
any private individual or group, because disputes over title to favor of, or in deference to, any other branch of the
public office are viewed as a public question of governmental government including the Congress, even as it acts as an
legitimacy and not merely a private quarrel among rival impeachment court through the Senate.
claimants.
To differentiate from impeachment, quo warranto involves a
Anent the second issue: There is no basis for the Associate judicial determination of the eligibility or validity of the election
Justices of the Supreme Court to inhibit in the case. or appointment of a public official based on predetermined
rules while impeachment is a political process to vindicate the
It is true that a judge has both the duty of rendering a just
violation of the public’s trust. In quo warrantoproceedings
decision and the duty of doing it in a manner completely free
referring to offices filled by appointment, what is determined is
from suspicion as to its fairness and as to his integrity.
the legality of the appointment. The title to a public office may
However, the right of a party to seek the inhibition or
not be contested collaterally but only directly, by quo
disqualification of a judge who does not appear to be wholly
warranto proceedings. usurpation of a public office is treated Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the
as a public wrong and carries with it public interest, and as Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be
such, it shall be commenced by a verified petition brought in removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of,
the name of the Republic of the Philippines through the culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft
Solicitor General or a public prosecutor. The SolGen is given and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.”
permissible latitude within his legal authority in actions for quo The provision uses the permissive term “may” which denote
warranto, circumscribed only by the national interest and the discretion and cannot be construed as having a mandatory
government policy on the matter at hand. effect, indicative of a mere possibility, an opportunity, or an
option. In American jurisprudence, it has been held that “the
Anent the fourth issue: Simultaneous quo express provision for removal by impeachment ought not to be
warranto proceeding and impeachment proceeding is not taken as a tacit prohibition of removal by other methods when
forum shopping and is allowed. there are other adequate reasons to account for this express
provision.”
Quo warranto and impeachment may proceed independently of
each other as these remedies are distinct as to (1) jurisdiction The principle in case law is that during their incumbency,
(2) grounds, (3) applicable rules pertaining to initiation, filing impeachable officers cannot be criminally prosecuted for an
and dismissal, and (4) limitations. Forum shopping is the act of offense that carries with it the penalty of removal, and if they
a litigant who repetitively availed of several judicial remedies in are required to be members of the Philippine Bar to qualify for
different courts, simultaneously or successively, all their positions, they cannot be charged with disbarment. The
substantially founded on the same transactions and the same proscription does not extend to actions assailing the public
essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially officer’s title or right to the office he or she occupies. Even the
the same issues, either pending in or already resolved PET Rules expressly provide for the remedy of either an
adversely by some other court, to increase his chances of election protest or a petition for quo warranto to question the
obtaining a favorable decision if not in one court, then in eligibility of the President and the Vice-President, both of
another. The test for determining forum shopping is whether in whom are impeachable officers.
the two (or more) cases pending, there is identity of parties,
rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought. The crux of the Further, that the enumeration of “impeachable offenses” is
controversy in this quo warranto proceedings is the made absolute, that is, only those enumerated offenses are
determination of whether or not Sereno legally holds the Chief treated as grounds for impeachment, is not equivalent to
Justice position to be considered as an impeachable officer in saying that the enumeration likewise purport to be a complete
the first place. On the other hand, impeachment is for statement of the causes of removal from office. If other causes
respondent’s prosecution for certain impeachable offenses. of removal are available, then other modes of ouster can
Simply put, while Sereno’s title to hold a public office is the likewise be availed. To subscribe to the view that appointments
issue in quo warranto proceedings, impeachment necessarily or election of impeachable officers are outside judicial review is
presupposes that Sereno legally holds the public office and to cleanse their appointments or election of any possible defect
thus, is an impeachable officer, the only issue being whether or pertaining to the Constitutionally-prescribed qualifications
not she committed impeachable offenses to warrant her which cannot otherwise be raised in an impeachment
removal from office. proceeding. To hold otherwise is to allow an absurd situation
where the appointment of an impeachable officer cannot be
Moreover, the reliefs sought are different. respondent in a quo questioned even when, for instance, he or she has been
warranto proceeding shall be adjudged to cease from holding a determined to be of foreign nationality or, in offices where Bar
public office, which he/she is ineligible to hold. Moreover, membership is a qualification, when he or she fraudulently
impeachment, a conviction for the charges of impeachable represented to be a member of the Bar.
offenses shall result to the removal of the respondent from the
public office that he/she is legally holding. It is not legally Anent the sixth issue: The Supreme Court’s exercise of its
possible to impeach or remove a person from an office that jurisdiction over a quo warranto petition is not violative of the
he/she, in the first place, does not and cannot legally hold or doctrine of separation of powers.
occupy.
The Court’s assumption of jurisdiction over an action for quo
Lastly, there can be no forum shopping because the warranto involving a person who would otherwise be an
impeachment proceedings before the House is not the impeachable official had it not been for a disqualification, is not
impeachment case proper, since it is only a determination of violative of the core constitutional provision that impeachment
probable cause. The impeachment case is yet to be initiated by cases shall be exclusively tried and decided by the Senate.
the filing of the Articles of Impeachment before the Senate. Again, the difference between quo warranto and impeachment
Thus, at the moment, there is no pending impeachment case must be emphasized. An action for quo warranto does not try a
against Sereno. The process before the House is merely person’s culpability of an impeachment offense, neither does a
inquisitorial and is merely a means of discovering if a person writ of quo warranto conclusively pronounce such culpability.
may be reasonably charged with a crime. The Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction over quo
warranto proceedings does not preclude Congress from
Anent the fifth issue: Impeachment is not an exclusive enforcing its own prerogative of determining probable cause for
remedy by which an invalidly appointed or invalidly elected impeachment, to craft and transmit the Articles of
impeachable official may be removed from office. Impeachment, nor will it preclude Senate from exercising its
constitutionally committed power of impeachment.
The language of Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution does
not foreclose a quo warranto action against impeachable
officers: “Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the
However, logic, common sense, reason, practicality and even questioning Sereno’s qualification· for office only upon
principles of plain arithmetic bear out the conclusion that an discovery of the cause of ouster because even up to the
unqualified public official should be removed from the position present, Sereno has not been candid on whether she filed the
immediately if indeed Constitutional and legal requirements required SALNs or not. The defect on Sereno’s appointment
were not met or breached. To abdicate from resolving a legal was therefore not discernible, but was, on the contrary,
controversy simply because of perceived availability of another deliberately rendered obscure.
remedy, in this case impeachment, would be to sanction the
initiation of a process specifically intended to be long and Anent the eighth issue: The Court has supervisory authority
arduous and compel the entire membership of the Legislative over the JBC includes ensuring that the JBC complies with its
branch to momentarily abandon their legislative duties to focus own rules.
on impeachment proceedings for the possible removal of a
Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution provides that “A
public official, who at the outset, may clearly be unqualified
Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the
under existing laws and case law.
supervision of the Supreme Court.” The power of supervision
For guidance, the Court demarcates that an act or omission means “overseeing or the authority of an officer to see to it that
committed prior to or at the time of appointment or election the subordinate officers perform their duties.” JBC’s absolute
relating to an official’s qualifications to hold office as to render autonomy from the Court as to place its non-action or
such appointment or election invalid is properly the subject of improper· actions beyond the latter’s reach is therefore not
a quo warranto petition, provided that the requisites for the what the Constitution contemplates. What is more, the JBC’s
commencement thereof are present. Contrariwise, acts or duty to recommend or nominate, although calling for the
omissions, even if it relates to the qualification of integrity, exercise of discretion, is neither absolute nor unlimited, and is
being a continuing requirement but nonetheless committed not automatically equivalent to an exercise of policy decision
during the incumbency of a validly appointed and/or validly as to place, in wholesale, the JBC process beyond the scope
elected official, cannot be the subject of a quo of the Court’s supervisory and corrective powers. While a
warranto proceeding, but of something else, which may either certain leeway must be given to the JBC in screening aspiring
be impeachment if the public official concerned is impeachable magistrates, the same does not give it an unbridled discretion
and the act or omission constitutes an impeachable offense, or to ignore Constitutional and legal requirements. Thus, the
disciplinary, administrative or criminal action, if otherwise. nomination by the JBC is not accurately an exercise of policy
or wisdom as to place the JBC’s actions in the same category
Anent the seventh issue: Prescription does not lie against the as political questions that the Court is barred from
State. resolving. [yourlawyersays]
The rules on quo warranto provides that “nothing contained in [READ: Justice Leonen’s dissenting opinion: Q&A Format]
this Rule shall be construed to authorize an action against a
public officer or employee for his ouster from office unless the With this, it must be emphasized that qualifications under the
same be commenced within one (1) year after the cause of Constitution cannot be waived or bargained by the JBC, and
such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or one of which is that “a Member of the Judiciary must be a
position, arose”. Previously, the one-year prescriptive period person of provencompetence, integrity, probity, and
has been applied in cases where private individuals asserting independence. “Integrity” is closely related to, or if not,
their right of office, unlike the instant case where no private approximately equated to an applicant’s good reputation for
individual claims title to the Office of the Chief Justice. Instead, honesty, incorruptibility, irreproachable conduct, and fidelity to
it is the government itself which commenced the present sound moral and ethical standards.” Integrity is likewise
petition for quo warranto and puts in issue the qualification of imposed by the New Code of Judicial Conduct and the Code of
the person holding the highest position in the Judiciary. Professional Responsibility. The Court has always viewed
integrity with a goal of preserving the confidence of the litigants
Section 2 of Rule 66 provides that “the Solicitor General or a in the Judiciary. Hence, the JBC was created in order to
public prosecutor, when directed by the President of the ensure that a member of the Supreme Court must be a person
Philippines, or when upon complaint or otherwise he has good of provencompetence, integrity, probity, and independence.
reason to believe that any case specified in the preceding
section can be established by proof must commence such Anent the ninth issue: The filing of SALN is a constitutional
action.” It may be stated that ordinary statutes of limitation, civil and statutory requirement.
or penal, have no application to quo warranto proceeding
Section 17, Article XI of the Constitution states that “A public
brought to enforce a public right. There is no limitation or
officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as
prescription of action in an action for quo warranto, neither
often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a
could there be, for the reason that it was an action by the
declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth.”
Government and prescription could not be plead as a defense
This has likewise been required by RA 3019 and RA 6713.
to an action by the Government.
“Failure to comply” with the law is a violation of law, a “prima
That prescription does not lie in this case can also be deduced facie evidence of unexplained wealth, which may result in the
from the very purpose of an action for quo warranto. dismissal from service of the public officer.” It is a clear breach
Because quo warranto serves to end a continuous usurpation, of the ethical standards set for public officials and employees.
no statute of limitations applies to the action. Needless to say, The filing of the SALN is so important for purposes of
no prudent and just court would allow an unqualified person to transparency and accountability that failure to comply with
hold public office, much more the highest position in the such requirement may result not only in dismissal from the
Judiciary. Moreover, the Republic cannot be faulted for public service but also in criminal liability. Section 11 of R.A.
No. 6713 even provides that non-compliance with this
requirement is not only punishable by imprisonment and/or a honorary capacity” to be exempted from the SALN laws on RA
fine, it may also result in disqualification to hold public office. 6713.
Because the Chief Justice is a public officer, she is Neither can the clearance and certification of UP HRDO be
constitutionally and statutorily mandated to perform a positive taken in favor of Sereno. During the period when Sereno was a
duty to disclose all of his assets and liabilities. According to professor in UP, concerned authorized official/s of the Office of
Sereno herself in her dissenting opinion in one case, those the President or the Ombudsman had not yet established
who accept a public office do so cum onere, or with a burden, compliance procedures for the review of SALNs filed by
and are considered as accepting its burdens and obligations, officials and employees of State Colleges and Universities, like
together with its benefits. They thereby subject themselves to U.P. The ministerial duty of the head of office to issue
all constitutional and legislative provisions relating thereto, and compliance order came about only on 2006 from the CSC. As
undertake to perform all the duties of their office. The public such, the U.P. HRDO could not have been expected to perform
has the right to demand the performance of those duties. More its ministerial duty of issuing compliance orders to Sereno
importantly, while every office in the government service is a when such rule was not yet in existence at that time. Moreover,
public trust, no position exacts a greater demand on moral the clearance are not substitutes for SALNs. The import of said
righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in clearance is limited only to clearing Sereno of her academic
the Judiciary. and administrative responsibilities, money and property
accountabilities and from administrative charges as of the date
Noncompliance with the SALN requirement indubitably·reflects of her resignation.
on a person’s integrity. It is not merely a trivial or a formal
requirement. The contention that the mere non-filing does not Neither can Sereno’s inclusion in the matrix of candidates with
affect Sereno’s integrity does not persuade considering that complete requirements and in the shortlist nominated by the
RA 6713 and RA 3019 are malum prohibitum and not malum in JBC confirm or ratify her compliance with the SALN
se. Thus, it is the omission or commission of that act as requirement. Her inclusion in the shortlist of candidates for the
defined by the law, and not the character or effect thereof, that position of Chief Justice does not negate, nor supply her with
determines whether or not the provision has been violated. the requisite proof of integrity. She should have been
Malice or criminal intent is completely immaterial. disqualified at the outset. Moreover, the JBC En Banc cannot
be deemed to have considered Sereno eligible because it does
Anent the tenth issue: Sereno chronically failed to file her not appear that Sereno’s failure to submit her SALNs was
SALNs and thus violated the Constitution, the law, and the squarely addressed by the body. Her inclusion in the shortlist
Code of Judicial Conduct. of nominees and subsequent appointment to the position do
not estop the Republic or this Court from looking into her
In Sereno’s 20 years of government service in UP Law, only 11
qualifications. Verily, no estoppel arises where the
SALNs have been filed. Sereno could have easily dispelled
representation or conduct of the party sought to be estopped is
doubts as to the filing or nonfiling of the unaccounted SALNs
due to ignorance founded upon an innocent mistake
by presenting them before the Court. Yet, Sereno opted to
withhold such information or such evidence, if at all, for no Anent the eleventh issue: Sereno failed to properly and
clear reason. The Doblada case, invoked by Sereno, cannot be promptly file her SALNs, again in violation of the Constitutional
applied, because in the Doblada case, there was a letter of the and statutory requirements .
head of the personnel of the branch of the court that the
missing SALN exists and was duly transmitted and received by Failure to file a truthful, complete and accurate SALN would
the OCA as the repository agency. In Sereno’s case, the likewise amount to dishonesty if the same is attended by
missing SALNs are neither proven to be in the records of nor malicious intent to conceal the truth or to make false
was proven to have been sent to and duly received by the statements. The suspicious circumstances include: 1996 SALN
Ombudsman as the repository agency. The existence of these being accomplished only in 1998; 1998 SALN only filed in
SALNs and the fact of filing thereof were neither established by 2003; 1997 SALN only notarized in 1993; 2004-2006 SALNs
direct proof constituting substantial evidence nor by mere were not filed which were the years when she received the
inference. Moreover, the statement of the Ombudsman is bulk of her fees from PIATCO cases, 2006 SALN was later on
categorical: “based on records on file, there is no SALN intended to be for 2010, gross amount from PIATCO cases
filed by [Sereno] for calendar years 1999 to 2009 except SALN were not reflected, suspicious increase of P2,700,000 in
ending December 1998.” This leads the Court to conclude that personal properties were seen in her first five months as
Sereno did not indeed file her SALN. Associate Justice. It is therefore clear as day that Sereno failed
not only in complying with the physical act of filing, but also
For this reason, the Republic was able to discharge its burden committed dishonesty betraying her lack of integrity, honesty
of proof with the certification from UP HRDO and Ombudsman, and probity. The Court does not hesitate to impose the
and thus it becomes incumbent upon Sereno to discharge her supreme penalty of dismissal against public officials whose
burden of evidence. Further, the burden of proof in a quo SALNs were found to have contained discrepancies,
warranto proceeding is different when it is filed by the State in inconsistencies and non-disclosures.
that the burden rests upon the respondent.
Anent the twelfth issue: Sereno failed to submit the required
In addition, contrary to what Sereno contends, being on leave SALNs as to qualify for nomination pursuant to the JBC rules.
does not exempt her from filing her SALN because it is not
tantamount to separation from government service. The fact The JBC required the submission of at least ten SALNs from
that Sereno did not receive any pay for the periods she was on those applicants who are incumbent Associate Justices,
leave does not make her a government worker “serving in an absent which, the applicant ought not to have been
interviewed, much less been considered for nomination. From
the minutes of the meeting of the JBC, it appeared that Sereno The requirement to submit SALNs is made more emphatic
was singled out from the rest of the applicants for having failed when the applicant is eyeing the position of Chief Justice. On
to submit a single piece of SALN for her years of service in UP the June 4, 2012, JBC En Banc meeting, Senator Escudero
Law. It is clear that JBC did not do away with the SALN proposed the addition of the requirement of SALN in order for
requirement, but still required substantial compliance. the next Chief Justice to avoid what CJ Corona had gone
Subsequently, it appeared that it was only Sereno who was not through. Further, the failure to submit the required SALNs
able to substantially comply with the SALN requirement, and means that the JBC and the public are divested of the
instead of complying, Sereno wrote a letter containing opportunity to consider the applicant’s fitness or propensity to
justifications why she should no longer be required to file the commit corruption or dishonesty. In Sereno’s case, for
SALNs: that she resigned from U.P. in 2006 and then resumed example, the waiver of the confidentiality of bank deposits
government service only in 2009, thus her government service would be practically useless for the years that she failed to
is not continuous; that her government records are more than submit her SALN since the JBC cannot verify whether the
15 years old and thus infeasible to retrieve; and that U.P. same matches the entries indicated in the SALN.
cleared her of all academic and administrative responsibilities
and charges. Anent the fourteenth issue: Sereno’s ineligibility for lack of
proven integrity cannot be cured by her nomination and
These justifications, however, did not obliterate the simple fact subsequent appointment as Chief Justice.
that Sereno submitted only 3 SALNs to the JBC in her 20-year
service in U.P., and that there was nary an attempt on Well-settled is the rule that qualifications for public office must
Sereno’s part to comply. Moreover, Sereno curiously failed to be possessed at the time of appointment and assumption of
mention that she did not file several SALNs during the course office and also during the officer’s entire tenure as a continuing
of her employment in U.P. Such failure to disclose a material requirement. The voidance of the JBC nomination as a
fact and the concealment thereof from the JBC betrays any necessary consequence of the Court’s finding that Sereno is
claim of integrity especially from a Member of the Supreme ineligible, in the first place, to be a candidate for the position of
Court. [yourlawyersays] Chief Justice and to be nominated for said position follows as a
matter of course. The Court has ample jurisdiction to do so
Indubitably, Sereno not only failed to substantially comply with without the necessity of impleading the JBC as the Court can
the submission of the SALNs but there was no compliance at take judicial notice of the explanations from the JBC members
all. Dishonesty is classified as a grave offense the penalty of and the OEO. he Court, in a quo warranto proceeding,
which is dismissal from the service at the first infraction. A maintains the power to issue such further judgment
person aspiring to public office must observe honesty, candor determining the respective rights in and to the public office,
and faithful compliance with the law. Nothing less is expected. position or franchise of all the parties to the action as justice
Dishonesty is a malevolent act that puts serious doubt upon requires.
one’s ability to perform his duties with the integrity and
uprightness demanded of a public officer or employee. For Neither will the President’s act of appointment cause to qualify
these reasons, the JBC should no longer have considered Sereno. Although the JBC is an office constitutionally created,
Sereno for interview. the participation of the President in the selection and
nomination process is evident from the composition of the JBC
Moreover, the fact that Sereno had no permit to engage in itself.
private practice while in UP, her false representations that she
was in private practice after resigning from UP when in fact she An appointment is essentially within the discretionary power of
was counsel for the government, her false claims that the whomsoever it is vested, subject to the only condition that the
clearance from UP HRDO is proof of her compliance with appointee should possess the qualifications required by law.
SALNs requirement, her commission of tax fraud for failure to While the Court surrenders discretionary appointing power to
truthfully declare her income in her ITRs for the years 2007- the President, the exercise of such discretion is subject to the
2009, procured a brand new Toyota Land Cruiser worth at non-negotiable requirements that the appointee is qualified and
least P5,000,000, caused the hiring of Ms. Macasaet without all other legal requirements are satisfied, in the absence of
requisite public bidding, misused P3,000,000 of government which, the appointment is susceptible to attack.
funds for hotel accommodation at Shangri-La Boracay as the
Anent the fifteenth issue: Sereno is a de facto officer
venue of the 3rd ASEAN Chief Justices meeting, issued a TRO
removable through quo warranto
in Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines
v. COMELECcontrary to the Supreme Court’s internal rules, The effect of a finding that a person appointed to an office is
manipulated the disposition of the DOJ request to transfer the ineligible therefor is that his presumably valid appointment will
venue of the Maute cases outside of Mindanao, ignored rulings give him color of title that confers on him the status of a de
of the Supreme Court with respect to the grant of survivorship facto officer. For lack of a Constitutional qualification, Sereno is
benefits which caused undue delay to the release of ineligible to hold the position of Chief Justice and is merely
survivorship benefits to spouses of deceased judges and holding a colorable right or title thereto. As such, Sereno has
Justices, manipulated the processes of the JBC to exclude never attained the status of an impeachable official and her
then SolGen, now AJ Francis Jardeleza, by using highly removal from the office, other than by impeachment, is
confidential document involving national security against the justified. The remedy, therefore, of a quo warranto at the
latter among others, all belie the fact that Sereno has integrity. instance of the State is proper to oust Sereno from the
appointive position of Chief Justice.
Anent the thirteenth issue: Sereno’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