l\epublic of tbe tlbilippines ~upreme <!l:ourt ;fflanila EN BANC REPUBLIC of the PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 237428 represented by SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA, Petitioner, Present: SERENO, C.J.,* CARPIO, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, PERLAS-BERNABE, - versus - LEONEN, JARDELEZA, CAGUIOA, MARTIRES, TIJAM, REYES, JR., and GESMUNDO, JJ. Promulgated: MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO Respondent. May 11, 20~ x---------------------------------------------------------~--------------------x DECISION TIJAM, J.: Whoever walks in integrity and with moral character walks securely, but he who takes a crooked way will be discovered and punished. -The Holy Bible, Proverbs 10:9 (AMP) 'No Part. Decision 2 G.R. No. 237428 Integrity has, at all times, been stressed to be one of the required qualifications of a judge. It is not a new concept in the vocation of administering and dispensing justice. In the early l 600's, Francis Bacon, a philosopher, statesman, and jurist, in his "Essay L VI: Of Judicature" said - "'[a]bove all things, integrity is the Judge's portion and proper virtue." Neither is integrity a complex concept necessitating esoteric philosophical disquisitions to be understood. Simply, it is a qualification of being honest, truthful, and having steadfast adherence to moral and ethical principles. 1 Integrity connotes being consistent - doing the right thing in accordance with the law and ethical standards everytime. Hence, every judicial officer in any society is required to comply, not only with the laws and legislations, but with codes and canons of conduct and ethical standards as well, without derogation. As Thomas Jefferson remarked, "it is of great importance to set a resolution, never not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual, he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart and in time depraves all its good dispositions." Mental dishonesty and moral mischief breed all that integrity is not. In our jurisdiction, one cannot be qualified to be a member of the Judiciary, lacking such mandatory requirement of "proven integrity". Inevitably, an appointee to the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must be the exemplar of honesty, probity and integrity. The purpose of this requirement is self-evident as the Chief Justice heads the Judiciary and adjudicates cases as a member of the Court that "has the last word on what the law is."2 Together with other Justices, the Chief Justice also disciplines members of the Bar for misconduct. The significance of probity and integrity as a requirement for appointment to the Judiciary is underscored by the fact that such qualifications are not explicitly required of the President, the Vice-President or the Members of Congress under the Constitution. The Constitution, thus, demands in no uncertain terms that the Chief Justice be the embodiment of moral and ethical principles. He or she must be of unquestionable character, possessed of moral authority to demand obedience to the law and to impose a rule of conduct. Indeed, one who exacts compliance with the law and ethical standards should be their foremost adherent. No one is above the law and the Constitution, not even a Chief Justice who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and obey the laws of the land. The Court in Francisco, Jr. v. The House of Representatives,3 says <http://www.dictionary.com/browse/integrity> (visited on March 19, 2018); <https://www.thefreedictionary.com/integrity> (visited on March 19, 2018). 2 Conde v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 228 Phil. 145, 151 ( 1986). 3 460 Phil. 830 (2003). Decision 3 G.R. No. 237428 it tritely - "the Chief Justice is not above the law and neither is any other member of this Court."4 All public officers whether in the Executive, Legislative or Judicial departments are bound to follow the law. If a public officer violates the law, he or she shall suffer punishment, sanctions and adverse consequences. The obligatory force of the law is necessary because once we allow exceptions, concessions, waiver, suspension or non­ application to those who do not want to follow the law, nobody else will obey the law. In this unprecedented case for quo warranto against the incumbent Chief Justice, the Republic entreats this Court to declare Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (respondent) ineligible to hold the highest post in the Judiciary for failing to. regularly disclose her assets, liabilities and net worth as a member of the career service prior to her appointment as an Associate Justice, and later as Chief Justice, of the Supreme Court, in violation of the Constitution, the Anti-Graft Law, and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. The Republic accordingly seeks the nullification of respondent's appointment, asserting that her failure to file the required disclosures and her failure to submit the same to the Judicial and Bar Council show that she is not possessed of "proven integrity" demanded of every aspirant to the Judiciary. The Case Invoking the Court's original jurisdiction under Section 5(1 ), Article VIII of the Constitution in relation to the special civil action under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed the present Petition5 for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of quo warranto to declare as void respondent's appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and to oust and altogether exclude respondent therefrom. The Antecedents From November 1986 to June 1, 2006, or spanning a period of 20 years, respondent served as a member of the faculty of the University of the Philippines-College of Law (U.P. or U.P. College of Law), initially as a temporary faculty member (from November 1986 to December 31, 1991) and thereafter, as a permanent faculty member until her resignation therefrom on June 1, 2006.6 As a regular faculty member, respondent was paid by the month by U.P. 7 4 Id. at 943. 5 Rollo, pp. 3-44. 6 Id. at 172. 7 TSN, Oral Arguments on April 10, 2018. Decision 4 G.R. No. 237428 Based on the records of the U.P. Human Resources Development Office (U.P. HRD0),8 respondent was on official leave from the U.P. College of Law for the following periods: -- -- -- - ' - June 1, 2000 - May 31, 2001 June 1, 2001 - May 31, 2002 November 1, 2003 - May 31, 2004 June 1, 2004 - October 31, 2004 +----- November 1, 2004 - February 10, 2005 February 11, 2005 - October 31, 2005 November 15, 2005 - May 31, 2006 ---- While being employed at the U.P. College of Law, or from October 2003 to 2006, respondent was concurrently employed as legal counsel of the Republic in two international arbitrations: (a) PIATCO v. Republic of the Philippines and MIAA; and (b) Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (PIATCO cases).9 The Personal Data Sheet (PDS) accomplished under oath by respondent further details, among others, the following engagements/services rendered by her for various government agencies: 10 Position From To No. of Department/ Nature of work Supervisor Years Agency Legal Counsel 1994 2008 14 yrs. Various agencies of Legal --- various Executive government --- Office international trade Secretaries of the President, and investment Alberto Office of the Solicitor law in WTO Romulo, General, Manila (Geneva), ICSID Eduardo Ermita International Airport (Washington, and Leandro Authority, Department DC). ICC-ICA Mendoza, Chief of Agriculture, (Singapore, Paris) Presidential Department of Trade and in bilateral Legal Counsel and Industry, WTO- dispute resolution Avelino Cruz AFTA Commission, mechanisms and Merceditas Philippine Coconut Gutierrez; Authority · Solicitor Generals Alfredo Benipayo, Antonio Nachura and Agnes Devanadera, MIAA General Manager Alfonso Cusi, L Sen. Edgardo ,_____ _,___ _ _j_____l_____ --- --------------------~--------- -----~------ 8 Annex "D" of the Petition. 9 Id. at 173. 10 Id. at 850-851. Decision 5 G.R. No. 237428 - --------------- - - ---····------------- ---- ---· ---- --- --------- - --~ --- ----···-- --------- . - - ------··--·--------- ----- Angara, Sec. Salvador Escudero, Undersecretary Thomas Aquino, Amb. Lilia Bautista Deputy Commission on Legal and Acting Commissioner Human Rights (UP Administrative Chairman& Diliman, Comm. Commonwealth Ave., Abelardo QC, TEL:928-7098) Aportadera (TEL: 687- 7571) Incidentally, the U.P. HRDO certified that there was no record on respondent's 201 file of any permission to engage in limited practice of profession. 11 Her engagement as legal counsel for the Republic continued until 2009. 12 Despite having been employed at the U.P. College of Law from November 1986 to June 1, 2006, the record of the U.P. HRDO only contains the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for 1985, 13 1990, 14 1991, 15 1993, 16 1994,17 1995,18 1996, 19 1997,20 and 2002,21 filed by respondent. On the other hand, the records of the Central Records Division of the Office of the Ombudsman yields that there is no SALN filed by respondent for calendar years 1999 to 2009 except for the SALN ending December 1998 which was subscribed only in August 2003 and transmitted by the U.P. HRDO to the Ombudsman only on December 16, 2003.22 Belatedly, in respondent's Ad Cautelam Manifestation/Submission, she attached a copy of her SALN for 198923 which she supposedly sourced from the "filing cabinets"24 or "drawers of U.P."25 Similarly, despite having been employed as legal counsel of various government agencies from 2003 to 2009, there is likewise no showing that she filed her SALNs for these years, except for the SALN ending December 31, 2009 which was unsubscribed and filed before the Office of the Clerk of Court only on June 22, 2012.