G.R. No.

237428, 11 May 2018

Quo Warranto Report by: Gertrude Arquillo; 11686987

Special Civil Actions under Atty. Custodio
DLSU LAW AY 2017-2018
Who filed the petition?

•The Republic of the Philippines, represented

by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida.

•Petition for the issuance of the extraordinary

writ of quo warranto to

1. declare void Respondent Sereno’s

appointment as Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court and
2. to oust and altogether exclude her
therefrom.
1. 1986-2006: member of 3. 2010: SC ASSOC. JUSTICE
the faculty of the UP LAW  July 2010: Respondent
2. 1994-2009: legal counsel submitted her application
for the Republic of the for the position of Assoc.
Philippines for several Justice of the SC.
agencies  SALNS available on record:
only 11 out of 25 SALNs
that ought to have been
filed.
 Aug 2010: Respondent was
appointed Assoc. Justice by
Pres. Benigno Aquino III.
 2012: position for Chief Justice
was declared vacant
 20 July 2012: JBC deliberated on
nominees with inc.
requirements.
 Respondent has not submitted her
SALNs for 10 years, from 1986 to
2006
 Bec other candidates had
incomplete docs,JBC agreed to
extend the deadline for
submission.
 JBC delegated to the Execom
the determination of substantial
compliance
 Failureexclusion from the list for
interview and nomination
 OSRN required Respondent
to submit her SALNs for
1995-1999 (UP Employment
Period)
 Respondent’s letter reply:
 the records in UP are more than
15 years old; it is “infeasible to
retrieve all those files.”
 UP has cleared her of all
responsibilities in 2006.
 her service in the government
was not continuous
 Such letter was not examined
or deliberated upon by the
JBC.
 Despite having submitted
only 3 SALNs (2009-2011), the
Report regarding
requirements of candidates
shows
 her name was annotated with
“COMPLETE
REQUIREMENTS”, noting her
letter that it was infeasible to
retrieve all files.
CHIEF JUSTICE IMPEACHMENT

 Aug. 25, 2012: Respondent

 Five years later, an impeachment
was appointed by complaint was filed by Atty.
President Benigno Aquino Larry Gadon with the House
III as Chief Justice Committee of Justice.
 Respondent failed to make a
truthful statement of her SALNs.
 Such complaint filed in the
House spawned a letter dated 21
February 2018 of Atty. Eligio
Mallari to the OSG requesting
OSG to initiate a quo warranto
proceeding.
  she has no right to hold office and
may therefore be ousted via quo
warranto.
▪ failure to submit SALNs as
required by the JBC disqualifies
her, at the outset, from being a
candidate for CJ
▪ Incomplete SALNS = not proven
her integrity, which is a
requirement under the
Constitution.
 one-year bar rule does not apply
against the State.
 SC has jurisdiction over the petition.
SECTION 7, 1987 CONSTITUTION
Section 7. (1) No person shall be appointed
Member of the Supreme Court or any lower
collegiate court unless he is a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines. A member of the
Supreme Court must be at least forty years
of age, and must have been for fifteen
years or more, a judge of a lower court or
engaged in the practice of law in the
Philippines.
XXX
(3) A member of the Judiciary must be a
person of proven competence, integrity,
probity, and independence
 CJ may only be ousted by impeachment (basis:
Constitution and jurisprudence)
 petition should have been filed
 within one year from the cause of ouster
 not from the discovery of the
disqualification.
 for the years she was on official leave without pay,
she was not required to file any SALN.
 to require submission as an absolute requirement
is to expand the qualifications by the Constitution.
 urges SC to apply Concerned Taxpayer v Doblada
 one cannot readily conclude failure to file
SALNs simply because these documents are
missing in the OCA’s files
 forum-shopping
 CJ SERENO INTERVENORS
 Respondent filed motions for the inhibition of five
Justices  Capistrano,
 Bersamin,  Sen. De Lima,
 Peralta,
 Sen. Trillanes,
 Jardeleza,
 QW aimed to deprive the
 Tijam, and
Senate of its jurisdiction as
 Leonardode Castro the impeachment tribunal.
 imputing actual bias for having testified in the
impeachment complaint  IBP
 TIJAM: for stating, in a Manila Times article, that  As lawyers with the duty to
Respondent is in culpable violation of the uphold Const.
Constitution  Peace and HR advocate
 MARTIRES: for his insinuations during the Oral
Arguments questioning her mental and
Murphy
psychological fitness.  Bayan Muna, Gabriela,
Anakpawis, et. al., intervened.
A. PRELIMINARY ISSUES B. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

1. Whether the Court can assume jurisdiction . YES.

1. Whether the grant 2. Whether the petition is outrightly dismissible on the ground of
of the motions to prescription; NO.
intervene is proper. 3. Whether respondent is eligible for CJ. NO.
a) Whether the determination of a candidate's eligibility for
NO. nomination is the sole and exclusive function of the JBC and
2. Whether the grant whether such determination. is a political question outside the
Court's supervisory and review powers; NO
of the motions for
b) Whether respondent failed to file her SALN s as mandated by
inhibition against the Constitution, law and IRR. YES.
the Associate c) Whether respondent failed to comply with the submission of
Justices on the SALNs as required by the JBC; YES.
d) In case of a finding that respondent is ineligible to hold the
basis of actual bias position of Chief Justice, whether the subsequent nomination
is proper. NO. by the JBC and the appointment by the President cured such
ineligibility. NO.
4. Whether respondent is a de Jure or de facto officer. DE FACTO
 .Movant intervenors have
no legal interest in the
case, as required in order
to qualify a person to
intervene;
 the remedy of quo
warranto is vested in the
people, and not in a
particular group.
 such individuals do not
claim a right to the
questioned position,
which is the only time
when an individual
himself/herself may
commence an action for
quo warranto.
COMPULSORY INHIBITION
 Movant must prove bias  The Assoc. Justices’
and prejudice by clear and
convincing evidence to
disqualify a judge.
 Justice Tijam’s statement
was only to prod the
Respondent to observe and
respect the constitutional
process of impeachment.
VOLUNTARY INHIBITION
appearance was in
deference to the HOR
whose constitutional duty
to investigate the
impeachment complaint
could not be doubted.
 .SC HAS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER QUO
WARRANTO PETITION (SEC 5., ART VIII, CONST)
 This jurisdiction is concurrent w/ CA
AND RTC.
 Section 7, Rule 66 of Rules of Court:
 the venue for an action for quo
warranto is in the RTC of Manila, CA,
or SC when commenced by the
Solicitor General.
 While the hierarchy of courts serves
as a general determinant of the
appropriate forum, a direct
invocation of SC’s original
jurisdiction is justified considering
that
 petition for quo warranto is of
transcendental importance.
 qualification, eligibility, and
appointment of an incumbent CJ,
the highest official of the
Judiciary, are being scrutinized
 .QW CAN PROSPER DESPITE RESP.  NO forum-shopping because
BEING AN IMPEACHABLE OFFICER qw and i can proceed
independently and
 the origin, nature and purpose of impeachment
and quo warranto are different.
simultaneously, as they
 Impeachment is political in nature
differ as to jurisdiction ,
 action for quo warranto is judicial or a grounds, applicable rules
proceeding traditionally lodged in the courts. pertaining to initiation, filing
 Different Cause of Action: and dismissal, and
 Qw: usurping, intruding, or unlawfully holding
or exercising of a public office, while in
limitations.
 Impeachment: commission of an impeachable
 impeachment case is yet to
offense. be initiated by the filing of
 Different reliefs sought: the Articles of Impeachment
 Qw: to cease holding a public office, which before the Senate.
he/she is ineligible to hold.
 Impeachment: a conviction results in removal
 Thus, at the moment, there is
from public office that he/she is legally holding. no pending impeachment case.
 .IMPEACHMENT IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE REMEDY 
Sec 2, Article XI, Const.: “[T]he Members of
BY WHICH AN INVALIDLY APPOINTED
IMPEACHABLE OFFICIAL MAY BE REMOVED the Supreme Court... may be removed from
FROM OFFICE. office on impeachment for, and conviction
 PET Rules expressly provide for the of, culpable violation of the Constitution,
remedy of either an election protest treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other
or a petition for quo warranto to high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.”
 Permissive term “may” which, in statcon,
question the eligibility of the
denotes discretion; not mandatory
President and the Vice-President,
 only those enumerated offenses are
both of whom are impeachable treated as grounds for impeachment.
officers. But that does not mean that it is to be
 In Estrada v. Desierto, et al. and taken as a complete statement of the
Estrada v. Macapagal-Arroyo, SC took causes of removal from office.
cognizance of qw petition against
former PGMA considering whether
Pres. Estrada’s resignation ended his
official status as President
 .SC’S EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION OVER A
QUO WARRANTO PETITION IS NOT
VIOLATIVE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS.
 Qw does not try a person’s culpability of
an impeachment offense
 SC’s exercise of jurisdiction over qw
does not preclude
 HOR from enforcing its own
prerogative of determining probable
cause for impeachment, to craft and
transmit the Articles of Impeachment
(AOI)
 Senate from exercising its
constitutionally committed power of
impeachment.
 It is incidental that the non-filing of
SALNs also formed part of the
allegations in the AOI
 an act or omission committed
prior to or at the time of
appointment relating to an
official’s qualifications to hold
office as to render such
appointment invalid is properly
the subject of a quo warranto
petition, provided that the
requisites for the commencement
thereof are present.
 committed during the
incumbency of a validly appointed
official, cannot be the subject of a
quo warranto proceeding, but of
something else, which may either
be impeachment or disciplinary,
administrative or criminal action

ACTUAL CONTROVERSY
 The exercise of judicial restraint on
the ground that the Senate, sitting as
an impeachment court, has the sole
power to try and decide all cases of
impeachment, is misplaced.
 An outright dismissal of the petition
based on speculation that
Respondent will eventually be tried
on impeachment is a clear abdication
of the Court’s duty to settle an
actual controversy squarely
presented before it.
 It is within the Court’s
judicial power to settle
justiciable issues or actual
controversies involving
rights, which are legally
demandable and
enforceable.
 It is not arrogating upon
itself the power to
impeach, which is a
political exercise.
 SEEKING AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF FROM THE
COURT IS TANTAMOUNT TO VOLUNTARY
APPEARANCE

 Respondent cannot now be heard to

deny the Court’s jurisdiction over her
person.

 Respondent in fact invoked and sought

affirmative relief from the Court by
 praying for the inhibition of several Members of
this Court and
 by moving that the case be heard on
OralArguments, albeit ad cautelam.
.PRESCRIPTION DOES NOT LIE
AGAINST THE STATE. ART 1108 (4) CC
 The one-year limitation is not applicable
when the Petitioner is not a mere private
individual pursuing a private interest, but
the government itself seeking relief for
a public wrong and suing for public
interest.
 In the three instances enumerated by
Rules of Court, SOLGEN is mandated to
commence qw petition (use of “must” )
 In Agcaoili v. Suguitan, “As a general
principle … ordinary statutes of
limitation, civil or penal, have no
application to quo warranto
proceeding brought to enforce a public
right.”
CIRCUMSTANCES PRECLUDE THE APPLICATION
OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
 purpose of an action for quo warranto: to
prevent a continuing exercise of an authority
unlawfully asserted.
 The Republic cannot be faulted for questioning
Respondent’s qualification only upon
discovery of the cause of ouster.
 Respondent cleverly hid the fact of non-filing
by stating
 that she came from private practice so she
should not be required to submit
 that it was not feasible to retrieve her
records
 that U.P. cleared her of responsibilities
 There can be no acquiescence or inaction of
the Republic as would amount to an
abandonment of its right to seek redress
against a public wrong.

A. 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
the character of a political
question outside the
Court’s supervisory and
review powers. NO
THE COURT’S SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OVER
THE JBC INCLUDES ENSURING THAT THE JBC
COMPLIES WITH ITS OWN RULES
 While a certain leeway must be given to
the JBC in screening magistrates, it does
not have unbridled discretion to ignore
Constitutional and legal requirements.
 Whether a nominee possesses the
requisite qualifications is determined
based on facts and therefore does not
call for the exercise of discretion of the
nominating body.
 Qualifications under the Constitution
cannot be waived by the JBC :
 E.g., Integrity

 B. Whether Respondent
failed to file her SALNs as
mandated by the
Constitution and required by
the law and its
implementing rules and
regulations;
 and if so, whether the failure
to file SALNs voids the
nomination and
appointment of Respondent
as Chief Justice. YES
COMPLIANCE WITH THE SALN REQUIREMENT
REFLECTS ON A PERSON’S INTEGRITY.
 filing of SALN is a Constitutional and
statutory requirement, under Sec 17,
Art XI Const., RA 3019, and the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees.
 Compliance is even more exacting when
the public official concerned is a CJ.
 To be of proven integrity, applicant must
have established a steadfast adherence
to moral and ethical principles
 failure to file is a violation of the law. It is
clear breach of the ethical standards set
for public officials
 It disregards transparency as a deterrent
to graft and corruption.

B. CONT’D.
 Respondent chronically failed to file her
SALNs.
 Respondent could have easily dispelled doubts
as to the filing by presenting them before SC
 Respondent opted to withhold evidence for no
clear reason.
 The Doblada doctrine does not persuade
because in that case Doblada was able to
present contrary proof that the missing SALNs
were, in fact, transmitted to the OCA, thus
rendering inaccurate the OCA report that she
did not file SALNs
 Being on leave is not equivalent to separation
from service such that she was still required to
submit SALNs during her leave
RESPONDENT FAILED TO PROPERLY AND
PROMPTLY FILE HER SALNS.
 The UP SALNs appear to have been
executed and filed under suspicious
circumstances;
 belatedly filed
 belatedly notarized,
 SALNs filed as CJ were also attended by
irregularities.
 This puts in question the truthfulness of
such SALNs, and would amount to
dishonesty if attended by malicious
intent to conceal the truth or to make
false statements.
  The JBC required the submission of at least
 C. Whether Respondent 10 SALNs from those applicants who are
failed to comply with the incumbent Associate Justices, absent
which, the applicant ought not to have been
submission of SALNs as interviewed, much less been considered for
nomination.
required by the JBC;  She did not submit her SALNs from 1986 to
2006
 and if so, whether the  There was no indication that the JBC
deemed the three SALNs (2009, 2010 and
failure to submit SALNs 2011) submitted by Respondent for her 20
to the JBC voids the years in UP Law and two years as Justice, as
substantial compliance
nomination and  In the end, JBC decided to require only past
10 SALNs, or from 2001-2011, instead of all
appointment of SALNs
 Certificate of Clearance issued by UP HRDO
Respondent as Chief cannot suffice as substitute for SALNs
Justice. YES
  The action of the JBC, particularly the
 D. Whether the Secretary of Justice as ex-officio
subsequent nomination member, is reflective of the action of
the President.
by the JBC and the  When the JBC wrongfully nominated
Respondent, the President, through
appointment by the his alter egos in the JBC, commits the
same mistake and the President’s
President cured such subsequent act of appointing
ineligibility. NO. Respondent cannot have any curative
effect.
 While the Court surrenders
discretionary appointing power to the
President, the exercise of such
discretion is subject to the non-
negotiable requirements that the
appointee is qualified and all other
legal requirements are satisfied
 The effect of a finding that
 a person appointed to an office is
ineligible therefor
 is that his presumably valid
appointment will give him color of
title that confers on him the status
of a de facto officer.
 For lack of a Constitutional
qualification, Respondent is
ineligible to hold the position of
CJ and is merely holding a
colorable right or title
 Respondent has never attained
the status of an impeachable
official and her removal from the
office, other than by
impeachment, is justified.
 The remedy of quo warranto at
the instance of the State is
proper to oust Respondent
 the consequent judgment under
Sec 9, Rule 66 of ROC is the
ouster and exclusion of
Respondent from holding and
exercising the rights, functions
and duties of the Office of the
Chief Justice.
 The sub judice rule restricts
comments and disclosures
pertaining to judicial
proceedings in order to
avoid
 pre-judging the issue,
 influencing the court, or
 obstructing the
administration of justice.
 Respondent and her
spokespersons chose to
litigate Respondent's case,
apart from her Ad Cautelam
submissions to the Court,
before several media-covered
engagements.
 This is a court action for quo
warranto, and as such, the
concomitant rule on sub
judice applies.

 WHEREFORE, the Petition
for Quo warranto is
GRANTED.
 Respondent
 DISQUALIFIED from and is
hereby adjudged GUILTY of
UNLAWFULLY HOLDING and
EXERCISING the OFFICE OF
THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
 OUSTED and EXCLUDED
therefrom.
 The position of the Chief Justice is
declared vacant
 JBC is directed to commence the
application and nomination process.
 This Decision is immediately
executory without need of further
action from the Court.
 Respondent ordered to SHOW CAUSE
within 10 days from receipt hereof
why she should not be sanctioned for
 violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Code of
Judicial Conduct
 for transgressing the sub judice rule
and for casting aspersions and ill
motives to the Members of the
Supreme Court.
 The solution to address the
problems relating to a CJ is
 for this Court to call her out
 impeachment
 have the grace and humility
to resign “Granting this Petition installs
doctrine that further
empowers the privileged, the
powerful, and the status quo.”
.GRANTING QW UNDERMINES
THE CONSTITUTION
 The majority’s reference to the • Granting qw undermines the
2010 Rules of the PET as constitutional mandate of
evidence that a qw petition is • JBC to prepare a short list of
not precluded as a method to nominees
remove impeachable officers is
• President to select from the
misplaced. JBC’s shortlist.
 Such reference ignores the fact
• Impeachable officers are only
that the said Rules only pertain
to the President and the Vice
removable by impeachment
President, which are the only and no other proceeding, such
impeachable officers elected by as disbarment.
the public.

.GRANTING QW THREATENS AND
UNDERMINES JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
 Allowing a judicial mechanism
for investigating judicial
colleagues
 suppresses candor and
 undermines the spirit and practice of
collegiality in the SC.
 It may even stifle free speech.
DIRE CONSEQUENCES OF
GRANTING QW PETITION
1. SolGen (not even a constitutional
officer) is given awesome powers.
2. Considering concurrent original
jurisdiction, a trial court judge may
oust a colleague from another branch
or another judicial region
3. empower appellate court judges to
exercise discipline and control over
lower courts. This will take away this
Court's sole constitutional domain to
discipline lower court judges.
4. there will be no security of tenure for
SC justices who will consistently dissent
against the majority.
5. this precedent opens the way to
reviewing actions of JBC & President—
an illicit MR against an appointment, even
long after the exercise of judicial power
 .An action for quo warranto can only be
instituted within 1 year after the cause of
action arises regardless of who institutes
the action.
 Rule 66, Section 11 of the Rules of Court:
 “Nothing contained in this Rule shall be
construed to authorize an action against a
public officer or employee for his ouster from
office unless the same be commenced within
one (1) year after the cause of such ouster, or
the right of the petitioner to hold such office
or position, arose…”
 The public policy behind the prescriptive
period for quo warranto is to provide
stability and consistency in the service by
limiting the uncertainty to the title to
public office.
 Additionally, the prescriptive period also
aims to protect public funds by way of
disbursing salary for two persons, one
illegally holding public office, and another
not rendering service although entitled to
do so.
 The majority cannot refer to Article 1108(4)
of the Civil Code to claim that prescription
does not lie against the State
 Such article refers to acquisitive and
extinctive prescription as regards
acquisition or ownership of real rights, and
not prescription in general.
 The position of Chief Justice does not fall
within the ambit of this article since a
public office is not a property right, hence
no proprietary title can attach to it.
 This is affirmed jurisprudentially as the
phrase “prescription does not lie against the
State” was limited to actions of reversion to
the public domain of lands.
 .Following the “upon discovery”
theory of the Petitioner, the
cause(s) of ouster consist of (1) her
alleged failure to file her SALNs
during her employment with the UP
College of Law, and (2) her failure to
submit all SALNs to the JBC when
she applied for the position of Chief
Justice in 2012.
 However, JBC, Ombudsman, UP
under the Executive department
would have already been aware,
or at the very least, put on notice.
 Both causes cannot be said to have
only been discovered during the
“This case marks the time when the
hearings before the Committee on
Court commits seppuku - without
Justice of the HOR to justify the
honor.”
belated filing of the qw action
 Said article expressly provides the mode
of removal: by impeachment, and not
through any other mode.
 This is the Constitution’s strongest
guarantee of security of tenure, which
effectively blocks the use of any other
legal ways of ousting an officer.
 In In re First Indorsement from Hon.
Gonzales (1988), initiating disbarment
proceedings will have the effect of
disqualifying a sitting Justice was
 The sole disciplining authority of all
rejected by the SC impeachable officers is Congress
 the rule rests on judicial independence  Section 3(1), and Section 3(6) of ArtXI of
and separation of powers. Without the Const
judicial independence, Members of the SC  The House impeaches, the Senate
may be charged by many parties for any convicts. To allow any other method
reason, who may seek to affect the is to re-write the Constitution.
exercise of judicial authority by the Court.
 The 1987 Const. is built on the principles of
separation of powers and its corollary
principle of checks and balances.
 The Constitution was designed to divide
the governmental powers among the three
coequal branches.
 In relation to this, the Const adopted
mechanisms to safeguard the
independence of these branches
 With specific regard to impeachment as “With the SolGen wielding a quo
a mode of removal, the Const provided warranto sword of Damocles over
a rigorous, difficult, and cumbersome the heads of these officers, the
process before removal can be effected. Filipino people cannot be assured
 intent of these safeguards is to that they will discharge their
enable the officials to carry out their constitutional mandate and
mandates free from political functions without fear or favor.”
influence and pressure in the
interest of public service
 .(cont’d.) jurisdiction should be
determined not merely on the basis of
the theoretical differences between the
two proceedings, but primarily from
intent behind the provisions
 The SolGen, as a non-impeachable
officer, is subject to the Ombudsman’s
disciplinary authority.
 Ombudsman’s impartiality and
independence may be affected if
the SolGen can threaten his/her
claim to the position by
commencing a quo warranto.
 SC’s impartiality and independence
in deciding a disbarment case
against the SolGen will be
compromised if the latter can initiate
a proceeding for removal of SC
members.
 Thus, SolGen can remake the
composition of SC
 The SolGen’s qw power is not the
“check and balance” that the
framers intended for the
impeachable officers who fail to
meet qualifications.
 SolGen is a presidential appointee. It
would be incongruous for the
SolGen to question the exercises of
the President’s power to appoint
officials
 .(contd. )Under the 1987 Const, electoral
contests under the PET Rules prove that
 Given the specific
impeachment is not the sole mode of constitutional grant of

removing from office impeachable officers.
The Court’s qw jurisdiction over elective
qw jurisdiction over
impeachable officials obtains, not on the basis elective impeachable
of the general grant of jurisdiction under Sec.
5(1), Art. VIII: “The Supreme Court shall have
officers, the same
the following powers: (1) Exercise original cannot mean similar
jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls, and over
jurisdiction over
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, appointive impeachable
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus officers.
xxx”
 but on the specific grant under the last  Qw is a recognized
paragraph of Sec. 4, Art. VII, which reads: “The mode for removal of
Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the
sole judge of all contests relating to the P/VP only within the
election, returns, and qualifications of the context of electoral
President or Vice-President, and may
promulgate rules for the purpose. contests.
 .(Contd.) Declaring that the general
quo warranto jurisdiction may be
asserted against impeachable
officers, how then do we reconcile
the conflict between the express
general grant of jurisdiction over
quo warranto petitions to SC and
the implied immunity recognized in
favor of the President who is made
respondent thereto?
 May the President even assert
his/her immunity against claims
that he/she is ineligible for office in
the first place?
 the ponencia's position opens up a
possibility of a constitutional crisis.

 .The review of the qualifications of
impeachable officials is the function of the PET,
the Commission on Appointments (ComAppt),
and JBC.
 a certiorari petition may be resorted to
invoking,
 not the certiorari jurisdiction under Sec.
5(1), Art. VIII,
 but the expanded power of judicial review
under Sec. 1, Art. VIII.
 The petition should implead the JBC or
ComAppt, since the central issue is Won
agency committed grave abuse of
discretion for nominating an ineligible
appointee.
 Sc may review JBC’s acts pursuant to its
supervisory authority over the Council.
 It’s odd for SC to exercise its supervisory
power over the JBC in a qw proceeding,
when JBC was not impleaded
 Assuming that the ground for
disqualification is discovered only after
the applicant has been nominated or
confirmed and has already assumed
office, then resort may be had through
impeachment.
it makes no sense to distinguish between
impeachment and qw because the latter is
subsumed in the former.
 qualifications for public office are
continuing requirements.
 If a public officer was ineligible upon
assumption of office , then he/she
carries this ineligibility throughout
his/her tenure and is unfit to continue
in office.
 There is an overlap between
impeachment and qw when the ground
pertains ineligibility. However, it is the
latter proceeding that should prevail

 .QW partakes of a direct attack to the
title of one’s office.
 the qualification being assailed, i.e.
proven integrity, is a subjective
qualification that has been previously
determined based on certain criteria set
by the JBC.
 it could not have been intended that the
subjective qualifications of any justice be
directly assailed before a court of law;
 otherwise, that court would be
supplanting the Council's determination
thereof, disruptive of the current structure
of the Constitution.
 This is not to say that the JBC’s
determination of an appointee's integrity, is
insulated from judicial intervention.
 the JBC’s official acts are presumed to be
valid and hence, assailable only on the
ground of grave abuse of discretion coursed
through a petition for certiorari.
 grave abuse of discretion is not an
available ground under the rules on quo
warranto;
 Solicitor General had expressly admitted
that it considers immaterial the issue of
grave abuse of discretion.
 Thus, if grave abuse of discretion has not
been asserted nor was it attributed against
the JBC, which was not even made a party
to this case, then the qualification of
Respondent should be maintained.
 .The remedy of quo warranto is available
to unseat even an impeachable officer.
(Estrada vs. Desierto)
 HOWEVER, as a constitutional body
vested with the power to screen
applicants, the JBC is entitled to the
presumption of regularity in the
performance of its constitutional duty.
 Therefore, the nullification of the JBC's  Under Rule 10 of JBC-009, when the
integrity of an applicant for
nomination of the Respondent is a
consideration is challenged, a
precondition before the Court could unanimous vote from all JBC
grant a quo warranto petition members is needed for inclusion in
 The present petition for quo warranto the list.
is premature.  no one raised or challenged
 The JBC should have been afforded the Respondent’s integrity when she
opportunity to review and defend its was first included in the list of
findings. Otherwise, the constitutional nominees in 2010 and as well as for
duty and the importance of the JBC will CJ in 2012.
be downplayed