Quo Warranto:

Purpose: Quo warranto is a legal remedy used to question the eligibility or qualification of a public
official to hold their position. It is typically used to challenge the right or authority of a person to occupy
a public office.

Procedure: Quo warranto proceedings are initiated through a petition filed in court. The petitioner
must provide evidence to demonstrate that the official in question does not meet the
qualifications or has committed acts that disqualify them from holding the office. The court will then
determine whether the official's appointment or election was valid.

Outcome: If the court finds that the official is not qualified or has committed disqualifying acts, the
official may be removed from their position. Quo warranto does not result in criminal charges or
penalties; it simply questions the validity of the official's tenure.

Impeachment:

Purpose: Impeachment is a constitutional process designed to remove high-ranking officials,

particularly the President, Vice President, members of the Congress, and other high-level officials, for
"high crimes, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other offenses, or betrayal of public trust." It is a
political process that aims to hold officials accountable for serious misconduct.

Procedure: The process for impeachment is outlined in the Philippine Constitution. It involves the
House of Representatives filing articles of impeachment, followed by a trial in the Senate. A two-thirds
majority vote in the Senate is required to convict the impeached official and remove them from office.

Outcome: If an official is impeached and convicted, they are removed from office and may also face
criminal prosecution for the offenses for which they were impeached. Impeachment is a more serious
and consequential process than quo warranto.

Example of Quo Warranto:

Suppose there is a mayor of a city who has been accused of not meeting the residency requirements
for the position. The mayor is alleged to have maintained a residence in a different city and, therefore,
is not qualified to hold the office of mayor in the city where they were elected. In this case:

A concerned citizen or a political rival may file a petition for quo warranto in court.

The petitioner would need to present evidence showing that the mayor does not meet the residency
requirements.

If the court determines that the mayor is not qualified to hold the office due to residency issues, the
mayor may be removed from the position.

Example of Impeachment:

Let's consider a scenario involving the President of the Philippines who is accused of serious offenses
such as embezzlement of public funds and abuse of power. In this case:

Members of the House of Representatives would initiate the impeachment process by filing articles of
impeachment against the President.

The House of Representatives would conduct hearings and gather evidence to support the charges.

If a majority of the House of Representatives votes in favor of the articles of impeachment, the case
would move to the Senate for trial.

In the Senate, a two-thirds majority vote is required to convict the President and remove them from
office.

If the Senate convicts the President, they would be removed from office, and criminal charges could
also be pursued for the embezzlement and abuse of power allegations.
In the Philippines, quo warranto is generally not the appropriate legal mechanism to remove an
impeachable officer, such as the President, Vice President, or members of the Congress, from their
position. Impeachment is the constitutional process specifically designed for the removal of
impeachable officials for "high crimes, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other offenses, or
betrayal of public trust."

Impeachment is a political process outlined in the Philippine Constitution, which requires the filing of
articles of impeachment by the House of Representatives, followed by a trial in the Senate. A two-
thirds majority vote in the Senate is necessary to convict and remove an impeachable officer.

Quo warranto, on the other hand, is typically used to challenge the eligibility or qualification of public
officials for lower-level positions and to question whether they have the legal authority or right to hold
a particular office. It is not intended to replace the impeachment process for impeachable officials.

Quo warranto is not the appropriate legal means to remove an impeachable officer in the Philippines.
Impeachment is the constitutional process specifically provided for this purpose.

Republic v. Sereno

Ruling: The Court reaffirms its authority to decide the instant quo warranto action. This authority is
expressly conferred on the Supreme Court by the Constitution under Section 5, Article VIII which
states that:

Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.

xxxx (Emphasis ours)

Section 5 of Article VIII does not limit the Court's quo warranto jurisdiction only to certain public
officials or that excludes impeachable officials therefrom.

A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine a person's right or title to a public
office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment. It is the proper action to inquire into a public officer's
eligibility or the validity of his appointment. Under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, a quo
warranto proceeding involves a judicial determination of the right to the use or exercise of the office.

Impeachment, on the other hand, is a political process undertaken by the legislature to determine
whether the public officer committed any of the impeachable offenses, namely, culpable violation of
the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.

The Court's quo warranto jurisdiction over impeachable officers also finds basis in paragraph 7,
Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution which designates it as the sole judge of the qualifications of
the President and Vice-President, both of whom are impeachable officers. With this authority, the
remedy of quo warranto was provided in the rules of the Court sitting as the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal (PET).

Respondent (Sereno), however, argues that quo warranto petitions may be filed against the President
and Vice-President under the PET Rules "only because the Constitution specifically permits" them
under Section 4, Article VII.

The Constitution, law, and rules clearly require that the sworn entry SALN "must be reckoned as of
his/her first day of service" and must be filed "within thirty (30) days after assumption of office."
Evidently, respondent failed to file under oath a SALN reckoned as of her first day of service, or as of
16 August 2010, within the prescribed period of thirty (30) days after her assumption of office. In other
words, respondent failed to file the required SALN upon her assumption of office, which is a
clear violation of Section 17, Article XI of the Constitution.

Retirement Benefits of late Chief Justice Corona

whether retirement benefits, other gratuities, and survivorship pension should be accorded to Mrs.
Corona as the spouse of the late Chief Justice Corona despite the latter's ouster by impeachment.

The Court grants the plea of Chief Justice Corona's widow.

The effects of a judgment on an

impeachment complaint extends
no further than to removal from
office and disqualification from
holding any public office.

An impeached public officer whose

civil, criminal, or administrative
liability was not judicially
established may be considered
involuntarily retired from service.

An impeached public officer whose

civil, criminal, or administrative
liability was not judicially
established is entitled to the
retirement benefits provided under
RAs 9946 and 8291.

After the judgment of impeachment was announced on May 29, 2012, tax evasion charges, criminal
cases for perjury, administrative complaints for violation of the RA 6713 of the Code of Conduct of
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and a civil case for forfeiture were slapped
against Chief Justice Corona in 2014.

These charges, however, were terminated upon his demise.

How, then, will a failure to judicially convict for any liability post-impeachment affect the employment
status, retirement benefits, survivorship pension, and other emoluments pertaining to the impeached?

The Court deems Chief Justice Corona to have been involuntarily retired from public service due to
the peculiar circumstances surrounding his removal by impeachment, without forfeiture of his
retirement benefits and other allowances.

There is a sizeable vacuum in the law that blurred the circumstances of Chief Justice Corona's
impeachment, in that no provision exists that lays out the consequences of his impeachment
pending the resolution of the other charges filed against him.

However, whether criminal, civil, or administrative, no court imposed any such liability upon the late
Chief Justice. Impeachment is only preparatory to liability. Since a removal by impeachment does
not explicitly provide for forfeiture as a consequence thereof, as opposed to a criminal conviction
carrying the penalty of perpetual or absolute disqualification, an impeached official, like former Chief
Justice Corona, cannot be deprived of his retirement benefits on the sole ground of his removal.

Retirement laws are liberally construed and administered in favor of the persons intended to be
benefited, and all doubts are resolved in favor of the retiree to achieve their humanitarian purpose.
The more important consideration for granting retirement benefits is to compensate satisfactory
service to the government. These are not mere gratuity, but a reward for allotting the best years of a
public servant's life in the service of the country. In the same vein, retirement benefits also form part of
the emolument that serve the alternative purpose of encouraging and retaining qualified employees in
the government service.

The late Chief Justice practically lived and died a public servant and thus entitled to retirement
benefits, which the Court finds no rhyme or reason to withhold from him.

Impeachment is political; quo warranto is judicial. In impeachment, the Congress is the prosecutor, the
trier, and the judge, whereas quo warranto petitions are instituted either by the Solicitor General in
behalf of the Republic of the Philippines or by an individual claiming the public office in issue, both of
which petitions are cognizable only by the Supreme Court. Impeachment proceedings seek to confirm
and vindicate the breach of the trust reposed by the Filipino people upon the impeachable official,
but quo warranto determines the legal right, title, eligibility, or qualifications of the incumbent to the
contested public office.

In fine, a judgment of impeachment per se connotes mere removal from the post. Since our
Constitution expressly limited the nature of impeachment, its effects must consequently and
necessarily be confined within the constitutional limits. Impeachment proceedings are entirely
separate, distinct, and independent from any other actionable wrong or cause of action a party may
have against the impeached officer, even if such wrong or cause of action may have a colorable
connection to the grounds for which the officer have been impeached.

Note: The criminal law principle of double jeopardy also finds no application against an impeached
public officer.

Double jeopardy exists when the following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to
the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the
same offense as in the first. A first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a
competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the
accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
express consent. The right against a second conviction for the same offense shall not be imperiled
upon a mere judgment of impeachment. Suffice it to state that a first jeopardy finds no opportunity to
arise at that point, as the essence of impeachment is not criminal in nature.

In terms of hierarchy, judges of the lower courts stand on unequal footing with the Justices of the
Supreme Court. It may certainly be contended that their circumstances do not level with those of a
Supreme Court Justice, much more the Chief Magistrate. However, whether a judge or a justice, all
are members of the Philippine Judiciary who swear foremost fealty to the same Constitution and oath
of public office, both of which demand the highest degree of awareness, loyalty, and submission
regardless of professional ascendancy. It needs emphasizing that the peculiarities of the present case
find no directly-analogous precedent, both in law or in fact, that the Court may rely on. Thus being the
case, the liberalities granted to a judge can be allowed to the Chief Justice.

it is herein stressed that the SALN is a tool for public transparency, never a weapon for political
vendetta.

Equity is the ink that writes the law and not its inverse