Quo warranto petition against Maria Lourdes Sereno
| Republic of the Philippines v. Maria Lourdes Sereno | |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of the Philippines en banc |
| Full case name | |
| Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida v. Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno | |
| Decided | May 11, 2018 |
| Citation | G. R. No. 237428 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | None; for quo warranto petitions the Supreme Court is always the court of first instance |
| Subsequent action(s) | |
| Related action(s) | Impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives |
| Questions presented | |
| Does the court have jurisdiction, or should the Congress decide via impeachment? Are quo warranto petitions time limited when brought by the Republic? Assuming jurisdiction and that the prescriptive period is immaterial, was Sereno's appointment ever valid? Is lack of integrity a ground on which quo warranto petitions should prevail? | |
| Ruling | |
| Ponente | Justice Noel Tijam |
| On original case: Petition of quo warranto granted, Sereno declared guilty of unlawfully holding and exercising the powers of the office of Chief Justice ab initio. Sereno ordered to show cause for violating the sub judice ethical conduct rule within ten days or else face an administrative case. On motion to reconsider: Denied. On administrative case: Found guilty of violating Canons 11 and 13 in the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Canons 1–4 in the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. "Sternly" reprimanded in lieu of suspension from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or disbarment therefrom. | |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Maria Lourdes Sereno (recused), Antonio Carpio, Presbitero Velasco Jr., Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo, Estela Perlas Bernabe, Marvic Leonen, Francis Jardeleza, Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, Samuel Martires, Noel Tijam, Andres Reyes Jr., Alexander Gesmundo |
| Concurrence | Justices de Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Jardeleza, Martires, Reyes, and Gesmundo |
| Concur/dissent | Justices Velasco Jr., del Castillo |
| Dissent | Justices Carpio, Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa |
The quo warranto petition against Maria Lourdes Sereno, filed before the Supreme Court of the Philippines, led to the landmark case Republic v. Sereno (G. R. No. 237428), which nullified Maria Lourdes Sereno's appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, finding that she never lawfully held the office due to a lack of integrity for failing to file certain required financial documents. As a result, she was ousted from the Supreme Court as Chief Justice. The Court handed down its ruling on May 11, 2018. The case began with a filing before the House of Representatives of an impeachment demand, the accusations in which Solicitor General Jose Calida used as the factual basis for his quo warranto petition.
Sereno had faced criticism from the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte for expressing her criticism of his Philippine Drug War, and many saw the petition as politically motivated. As mentioned, Sereno had also faced an impeachment trial prior to the granting of the petition, but after its granting, such trial became moot and was never scheduled. The ruling of the Supreme Court was received favorably by the Duterte administration as well as its political allies, while critics of the petition viewed Sereno's removal from office as an attack on due process and on the judicial independence of the Supreme Court.