Republic v. Sereno

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 237428. April 3, 2018.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA, petitioner,vs. MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedAPRIL 3, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 237428(Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida vs. Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno). — The Court Resolved to:

(a) DENY for lack of merit, by a vote of 10-2, the Motion for Leave to File Motion to Intervene and Opposition-in-Intervention dated March 19, 2018 filed by counsel for intervenors Bayan Muna Party-List Representative Carlos Isagani Zarate, ACT Teachers Party-List Representatives Antonio Tinio and Francisca Castro, Gabriela Women's Party Representatives Emerenciana De Jesus and Arlene Brosas, Anakpawis Party-List Representative Ariel Casilao, Kabataan Party-List Representative Sarah Jane Elago, Francisco A. Alcuaz, Bonifacio P. Ilagan, Col. George A. Rabusa (Ret.), Rene A.V. Saguisag, Bishop Broderick S. Pabillo D.D., Renato M. Reyes Jr., Kaye Ann Legaspi and Ephraim B. Cortez;

(b) NOTE the aforesaid Opposition-in-Intervention dated March 19, 2018;

(c) DENY for lack of merit, by a vote of 10-2, the Joint Omnibus Motion for Leave to Intervene and to Admit Comment-in-Intervention dated March 19, 2018 filed by counsel for intervenors Zorayda Amelia Capistrano Alonzo, Remedios Mapa Suplido, Alicia Gentolia Murphy, Noland Merida Penas, Roberto P. Reyes and Reyanne Joy P. Librado;

(d) NOTE the aforesaid Comment-in-Intervention dated March 19, 2018;

(e) NOTE the Supplement to Motion for Leave to File Motion to Intervene and Opposition-in-Intervention Cum Petition to Recuse dated March 23, 2018 filed by intervenor R.A.V. Saguisag, stating, among others, his arguments against the instant petition filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG);

(f) NOTE the Motion for Leave to File and Admit Opposition-in-Intervention dated March 23, 2018 filed by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP);

(g) NOTE the aforesaid Opposition-in-Intervention dated March 23, 2018;

(h) NOTE the Reply (to the comment on the petition) dated March 26, 2018 filed by the OSG for the petitioner in compliance with the resolution dated March 20, 2018; and

(i) NOTE the Consolidated Opposition with Leave of Court dated April 2, 2018 filed by petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida, opposing the (1) Joint Omnibus Motion for Leave to Intervene and to Admit Comment-in-Intervention dated March 19, 2018 filed by Zorayda Amelia Capistrano Alonzo, et al., (2) Motion for Leave to File Motion to Intervene and Opposition-in-Intervention dated March 19, 2018 filed by Bayan Muna Party-List Representative Carlos Isagani Zarate, et al. and (3) Motion for Leave to File and Admit Opposition-in-Intervention dated March 23, 2018 filed by the IBP and praying that the Court deny outright the said Motions or, in the alternative, should the Court entertain the said Motions and require the petitioner to comment, that the latter be allowed to adopt the Petition for Quo Warranto dated March 5, 2018 and Reply dated March 26, 2018 as its Consolidated Comment on the said Motions.

Acting on the Letter dated March 26, 2018 of Atty. Salvador T. Britanico of Britanico and Britanico Law Office, G/F 4 Matiwasay Street, U.P. Village, Diliman, Quezon City, the Court Resolved to DENY the request for copies of the 'submissions and resolutions' in the instant quo warranto case considering that Atty. Britanico is not a party to this case.

Acting on the Ad Cautelam Motion to Set for Oral Argument dated April 2, 2018 filed by counsel for respondent Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, the Court Resolved to:

(a) GRANT the subject Motion, not for the purpose cited therein, but for the sole purpose of granting the respondent a final opportunity to answer specific questions, under oath, needed for the judicious resolution of the instant case;

(b) SET this case for ORAL ARGUMENT on April 10, 2018, Tuesday, at 2:00 p.m. at the En Banc Session Hall, Supreme Court Compound, Baguio City; and

(c) REQUIRE the respondent to (i) PERSONALLY APPEAR and TESTIFY under oath and (ii) AFFIRM and VERIFY UNDER OATH the truth and veracity of the allegations in the Comment filed by counsels supposedly on her behalf. * Her failure or refusal to so appear shall result in the cancellation of the scheduled oral argument." Sereno, C.J., on leave. Perlas-Bernabe and Reyes, Jr., JJ., on official leave. (adv36) AaCTcI

(with Amended Advisory)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETAClerk of Court

ATTACHMENT

AMENDED ADVISORYGoverning Special Oral Argument

G.R. No. 237428 — REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE CALIDA versus MARIA LOURDES SERENO

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Petition for Quo Warranto dated March 2, 2018, questioning Ma. Lourdes P. A. Sereno's (respondent) possession of qualification for the position of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. On even date, in a Very Urgent Omnibus Motion, the OSG moved for the setting of the case for oral arguments. Notably, respondent never manifested any intention to join such motion.

On March 6, 2018, this Court resolved to deny the OSG's motion to set the case for oral argument.

Respondent, through counsel, filed an unverified Comment dated March 6, 2018, expressly refusing to recognize this Court's jurisdiction and stating that in the event that she retrieves her alleged missing Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs), she will present the same but before the Senate sitting as the Impeachment Tribunal without prejudice to her legal defenses in respect of the SALNs.

Belatedly, on April 2, 2018, respondent, through counsel, filed an Ad Cautelam Motion to Set for Oral Argument on the ground that "the Filipino people are eager to see how the Court will resolve this case of first impression." As stated in the said motion, "public interest would be served if the positions of the parties are, in part, argued in full public view." This cited ground is baseless and without merit. It must be emphasized that Section 2, Rule 10 of A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC or the Supreme Court Internal Rules states that court deliberations are confidential and not subject to public scrutiny.

Sec. 1, Rule 49 of the Rules of Court states:

Section 1. When allowed. — At its own instance or upon motion of a party, the court may hear the parties in oral argument on the merits of a case, or on any material incident in connection therewith. The oral argument shall be limited to such matters as the court may specify in its order or resolution. (emphasis supplied)

As can be gleaned from the said provision, the conduct of oral argument is not a matter of right, but a matter of discretion. In the exercise of such discretion, the Court En Banc, agreed to grant respondent's motion.

Accordingly, without necessarily giving due course to the petition, the Oral Argument is set on April 10, 2018, 2 p.m., at the Session Hall, Supreme Court, Baguio City. This is subject to the conditions that respondent shall: (a) personally appear and testify under oath and (b) affirm and verify under oath the truth and veracity of the allegations in the Comment filed by counsels supposedly on her behalf. *

For the orderly proceeding of Oral Argument, the parties are required to observe the following guidelines:

I. Order of Presentation

The parties in this case are: the petitioner, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, and the respondent MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO:

a) The Parties will be heard in that order, with the following time allocation for each:

1. Petitioner — twenty (20) minutes

2. Respondent — twenty (20) minutes

b) The list of lawyers who will argue and their assignments shall be filed through a Manifestation not later than 12:00 p.m. of April 6, 2018.

II. The interpellation by the Members of the Court will immediately follow after the presentation of arguments by each side.

III. The time allotted for each counsel to argue shall be exclusive of the time devoted to interpellation by Members of the Court. EcTCAD

IV. The parties shall limit their presentations for oral argument on the following issues:

1. Whether or not the Court can assume jurisdiction and give due course to the instant petition for quo warranto against respondent who is an impeachable officer and against whom an impeachment complaint has already been filed with the House of Representatives;

2. Whether or not the petition may be dismissed outright on the ground of prescription;

3. Whether or not the respondent can be granted relief by this Court considering that she expressly refuses to recognize this Court's jurisdiction;

4. Whether or not the respondent filed her SALN as required by the Constitution, law, implementing regulations, and the JBC Rules in relation to her application for the position of Chief Justice;

5. Whether or not the failure to file the SALN will invalidate her appointment as Chief Justice;

6. Whether or not the Certification issued by the University of the Philippines Human Resources Development Office dated December 8, 2017, stating that its records contain only respondent's SALN for the year 2002; and the Certification issued by the Office of the Ombudsman dated December 4, 2017, stating that there is no SALN filed by the respondent except for her SALN ending December 1998, are false;

7. Whether or not the petition for quo warranto should be granted;

8. Whether or not the submission of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN) carries the same weight as the requirements for the judiciary enumerated in Section 7, Article VIII of the Constitution;

9. Whether or not the SALN is the only way of determining if respondent is a person of proven integrity;

10. Whether or not the Judicial and Bar Council's (JBC) determination if a person is of proven integrity is a political question beyond this Court's power of judicial review;

11. Whether or not the Court, in the exercise of its supervisory power over the JBC, can void the JBC's act of including respondent in the short list for the position of Chief Justice; and

12. Whether or not the JBC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it included respondent in the short list for Chief Justice despite her disclosure of her failure to attach all of her past SALNs to her application.

V. The Members of the Court maintain their privilege to ask any question on any relevant matter or require submission of any document necessary for an enlightened resolution of this case.

VI. Written copies of opening statements, tables of authorities, copies of any document to be presented, and all slide presentations, if any, should be submitted to the Clerk of Court not later than 12:00 p.m. of Friday, April 6, 2018. The parties should submit one (1) original, fourteen (14) printed copies, and digital copies in accordance with the Resolution dated September 10, 2013 in A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC. All opposing parties should also be served with these documents and slide presentations.

VII. All other matters not covered by the oral arguments but properly raised in the pleadings shall not be considered eliminated as issues, but shall be discussed and argued in the written memoranda to be required of the concerned parties.

VIII. All parties are advised to strictly comply with the Efficient Use of paper Rule in A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC dated November 13, 2012, especially with respect to Supreme Court bound papers.

IX. The audio of the oral argument shall be live streamed like previous oral arguments that were live streamed.

X. The parties and their counsels are advised to avoid any situation that will cause any ex parte communications with any of the members of the Court, or court staff or personnel, otherwise they may be cited in contempt.

XI. It is understood that if the respondent fails or refuses to personally appear on April 10, 2018 or comply with the other aforementioned conditions set by this Court, the oral argument shall automatically be cancelled.

XII. In view of the limited space, attendance in the Baguio Session Hall during the scheduled oral argument are limited to the following:

1. Petitioner, Office of the Solicitor General shall be allotted a maximum of fifteen (15) seats;

2. Respondent's counsels shall be allotted eight (8) seats;

3. The remaining seats shall be allotted to the public on a first come first serve basis; and

4. The members of the media shall be allowed access to live streaming outside of the Baguio Session Hall.

 

Footnotes

* (iii) deleted.

ATTACHMENT

* (c) deleted.