Quo Warranto

Rule 66 of the Rules of Court
Quo Warranto
& the then CJ Sereno
Constitutional Law I
0
Definition.
Quo Warranto is defined as a legal proceeding by virtue of which a public

official’s right to hold a public office is being challenged before the
proper court.
It is a Latin phrase literally meaning “by what authority” or “by what

warrant.”
The old English legal system defines it as a writ or a written order from
the monarch addressed to a suspected usurper to explain by what reason
he is holding such office and upon what legal basis. While in modern
legal practice, it is an extraordinary petition filed by the prosecuting
attorney challenging someone who is being charged of usurping a public
office.
Local Setting.
Under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, a quo warranto proceeding is an

action by the government against an individual who “usurps, intrudes
into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or
franchise.”
Accordingly, the following shall apply:
1. The government may also bring a quo warranto petition to

court against “a public officer who does or suffers an act that,
by the provision of law, constitutes a ground for the
forfeiture of his office.”
2. A solicitor general or public prosecutor may file a quo
warranto petition upon the order of the President.
3. An individual also has the right to question someone’s
position as long as the petitioner is the one claiming
authority over that position.
4. A quo warranto case may only be brought within one year
from the time the cause of action or ouster arose.
1
Jose Calida vs Maria Lourdes Sereno.
As such, quo warranto allowed a remedy to be initiated by a solicitor

general to challenge an incumbent whose right to occupy a public office
is being questioned.
Whereas on March 5, 2018, Solicitor General Jose Calida filed a 34-page
petition questioning the right of Maria Lourdes Sereno to continue
holding her office as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He alleged that
she did not have the integrity required under Section 7 (3) of Article VIII
of the 1987 Constitution because she refused to fully disclose her wealth
and failed to submit all the Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net
Worth (SALN) required of her by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) for
a valid application as justice of the highest court of the land. From 1986
to 2006, Sereno's SALNs on record only covered 1998, 2002, and 2006.
Solgen Calida questioned the integrity of then CJ Sereno when she
allegedly failed to declare her attorney’s fees of $745,000 or roughly P37
million.
He also claimed that then CJ Sereno failed to declare 17 years out of her
28-year teaching stint at the University of the Philippines College of Law.
It could be recalled that Former President Benigno Aquino III appointed

Sereno to the high court post in 2012 following the ouster of the late
chief magistrate Renato Corona, who was removed for undeclared
wealth.
Then 52, Sereno was expected to stay in her post until reaching the
mandatory retirement age in 2030.
Other cases filed against her included those filed by Lawyer and Marcos
loyalist Oliver Lozano for a petition before the high court seeking the
nullification of Sereno’s appointment and by Lawyer Larry Gadon who
filed an impeachment complaint against her for alleged corruption,
betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.
2
On question whether an impeachable official like Sereno can
also be challenged through quo warranto.
No less than the Supreme Court itself has ruled in the case of Funa vs
Villar (GR 192791, 24 April 2012) that this writ is also an available
remedy. More insights can also be gathered if one reads the case of
Topacio vs Ong, Justice of Sandiganbayan (GR 179895, 18 December
2008).
Decision and Public Opinion.
Sereno was ousted as chief justice after the Supreme Court (SC) on
Friday, May 11, granted the quo warranto petition. The SC en banc voted
8-6. The Commision on Human Rights (CHR) said it is in "disbelief"
over the decision, noting that the 1987 Constitution states that a sitting
chief justice can only be removed through impeachment.
Opposition lawmakers said the SC committed "hara-kiri," affecting the
"integrity and independence" of the Philippine judiciary.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) has said that it plans to seek
the reversal of the ruling.
But constitutional law professor Dan Gatmaytan said only Congress has
the "personality" to challenge the petition.
House Majority Leader Rodolfo Fariñas earlier said lawmakers will not
yet declare the impeachment complaint against Sereno moot and
academic, as they will wait for the outcome of the motion for
reconsideration that Sereno's camp plans to file.
3
On Tax Issues.
The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) presented before the House

Committee on Justice findings on its investigation into the tax records of
then CJ Sereno.
Accordingly, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno accumulated more than

P2 million worth of tax deficiencies from the income she earned when
she represented the government in the Philippine International Air
Terminals Company Inc. (PIATCO) case from 2004 to 2009.
While Lawyer-complainant Larry Gadon stated in his complaint that
Sereno earned P37 million in the case, ML Sereno claimed that she
earned P30.3 million. BIR Deputy Commissioner Arnel Guballa on the
other hand said their investigation showed that the legal fees earned by
Sereno from the PIATCO case amounted to $625,179.68 or
P32,494,805.27 where the estimated basic tax deficiency amounts to
P2,014,233.20 excluding penalties, surcharges and interest.
Aside from supposed tax deficiencies, Guballa said Sereno has also
committed six violations on the filing of value-added tax (VAT) returns,
which is made on a quarterly basis under the National Internal Revenue
Code.
When asked if ML Sereno could be considered to have committed tax
evasion, BIR Deputy Commissione Arnel Guballa confirmed positive as
the prescription is good for ten (10) years upon discovery of the fraud
committed by any taxpayer. However, lawyer Jojo Lacanilao, one of
Sereno's spokespersons, said that Sereno cannot be held liable for the
discrepancies, as this was beyond the prescriptive period under Tax Law,
which is three years if without fraud.
4
Timelines.
1. After an impeachment process against her began, she took an

indefinite leave on March 1, 2018, but maintained she will not
resign.
2. She returned from leave shortly after the rest of the Supreme Court
made a decision on the quo warranto petition. Deciding on the quo
warranto petition en banc the Supreme Court justices voted to
remove Sereno from the court on May 11, 2018, by a vote of 8-6.
3. Sereno filed a motion for consideration but the high court denied
with finality Sereno's motion for reconsideration for lack of merit
on June 19, 2018 voting 8-6, upholding the quo warranto decision.
The ruling also stated that no further pleading will be entertained
as well as order for immediate entry of judgement.
Supporters of the decision hailed the ruling which they viewed

maintained the integrity of the high court while critics view it as an
attack on the high court's judicial independence
4. Senior Justice Antonio Carpio assumed the post of Chief Justice in

an acting capacity starting May 14, 2018, following Sereno's
removal from office.
5. On the evening of August 25, Teresita de Castro, who only had two
months left to serve in office, was appointed by President Rodrigo
Duterte as the new Chief Justice. The appointment sparked
outrage from the opposition.
6. On the upcoming retirement of CJ de Castro, the SC is now

preparing the short list of Justices to present to PRRD for his
appointment of a new CJ to replace the retiring CJ de Castro.
5
My Opinion.
As an aspiring Juris Doctor and currently in my first year in Law School,

it is only now that I get to have a better understanding and appreciation
of my role in the society. The opportunity to enrol in a reputable law
school, with calibre instructors and law experts assisting us to have a
better understanding of law, now enables us to be adept with the latest
decisions on the most controversial juridical issues.
The constitutional safeguards guaranteeing independence of the

judiciary includes a statement that the members of the Supreme Court
may only be removed by impeachment. Then CJ Sereno’s case is a
precedent case whereby as a member of the Judiciary, she has been
removed from position not through impeachment but by reason of
granting the petition on a decided quo warranto case filed against her.
Considering the lengthy articles written on the matter and after reading
most of them, I can personally say that the granting of the petition is just
and fair. Though considered to have been politically motivated, the
following made me believe the factual basis on the en banc decision by
the Supreme Court (SC):
1. A news article written by L Panti of the Manila Times, Psychologist

Geraldine Tria testified that Sereno exhibited five out of nine
strong manifestations of mental disturbance, namely: grandiosity,
[thirst for] unlimited power, sense of entitlement, exploiting other
people to her advantage and lack of empathy.
Tria, who did not give the psychological exams conducted by the
JBC in August 2012, based her observations on the accounts of
psychiatrists Dulce Sahagun and Genuina Ranoy and psychologists
Maria Suerte Caguingin and Bernaden de Leon-Jamon who
administered the tests on Sereno when she applied for the job of
Chief Justice
2. Claims on tax misdeclaration due to undeclared income portion of

her fees serving as government legal counsel for the arbitration
proceedings against the Philippine International Air Terminals Co.
Inc. (Piatco), builder of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport
(NAIA) Terminal 3
3. Alleged falsification of High Court documents

4. Claims on cause of delayed court action
6
5. Alleged use of judiciary funds for a P5.1-million bullet-proof
Toyota Land Cruiser vehicle
6. Claims on luxury travels
I am not to judge her personally because I may not know her real story
and I remain optimistic that despite the current condition of the politics
and economy in our country, someday soon, there will still be a chance
for political harmony and economic recovery. When all concerted efforts
are directed to one common goal and given that Filipinos are of great
minds and talents, the Philippines will shine once more and lead as one
of the better countries with a strong socio-economic stability, more
preferred as a tourist destination and a known investor-friendly society.
More so, where all Filipinos are peaceful and satisfied and where our
children will get to enjoy a better future.

Quo Warranto

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quo Warranto

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quo Warranto

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule 66 of the Rules of Court

Quo Warranto is defined as a legal proceeding by virtue of which a public

It is a Latin phrase literally meaning “by what authority” or “by what

Under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, a quo warranto proceeding is an

1. The government may also bring a quo warranto petition to

As such, quo warranto allowed a remedy to be initiated by a solicitor

It could be recalled that Former President Benigno Aquino III appointed

Decision and Public Opinion.

The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) presented before the House

Accordingly, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno accumulated more than

1. After an impeachment process against her began, she took an

Supporters of the decision hailed the ruling which they viewed

4. Senior Justice Antonio Carpio assumed the post of Chief Justice in

6. On the upcoming retirement of CJ de Castro, the SC is now

As an aspiring Juris Doctor and currently in my first year in Law School,

The constitutional safeguards guaranteeing independence of the

1. A news article written by L Panti of the Manila Times, Psychologist

2. Claims on tax misdeclaration due to undeclared income portion of

3. Alleged falsification of High Court documents

You might also like