SC JUSTICES ON SERENO CASE

Name: Gesmundo, Alexander

Date joined: Aug. 17, 2017

Vote on the Quo Warranto issue: In favor

Opinions and biases on the issue: No opinion stated on the matter.

Name: Jardeleza, Francis

Date joined: Aug. 19, 2014

Vote on the Quo Warranto issue: In favor

Opinions and biases on the issue: No opinion stated on the matter. However, Justice Jardeleza gave his opinion in
denying the inhibition petition filed by respondent Chief Justice Sereno against him. He opines that:

(1) That the grave importance of this case, its far-reaching doctrinal value and its permanent implications to the
Court as an institution call for no less than a decision made by a full court. A decision handed down by any
less would, in his opinion, “only fall short of affirming the public's faith in our country's administration of
justice”.
(2) He opines that questions of inhibition should, as a principle, be solely addressed to and answered by the
good judgment of the individual Justices concerned. Justice Jardeleza says that Chief Justice Sereno should
“not be allowed to affect ( or worse, impair) the ability of the Court to decide significant legal issues with its
full membership through the simple expedient of fashioning a colorable ground for inhibition on the part of
one (or some) of its members.”
(3) That his acts complained of by the respondent Chief Justice do not negate the degree of objectivity required
of SC Justices by the due process clause of the Constitution as to disqualify him. Justice Jardeleza is
convinced that “respondent's factual bases, when measured against the three tests in the Liteky case, all fail
to prove my alleged bias and prejudice against her”. Furthermore, his conduct and utterances “of which she
complains were not undeserved, as they were not done or said by me to merely vex her reputation”. In
addition, Justice Jardeleza’s opines that his acts complained of by CJ Sereno “were also only done and said in
self-defense, as measures to restore whatever I could salvage or restore of my name, in the face of
respondent's unprovoked assaults on my integrity”.
(4) Finally, Justice Jardeleza opines that: “my actions and words complained of are wholly extraneous and
immaterial to the facts and issues raised in this Quo Warranto petition which specifically relates to
respondent's alleged deficient submissions of her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).
That I cannot be impartial and decide this case on the merits based on the facts and evidence on record
cannot be presumed simply on account of my unpleasant "history" with respondent”.

Source: Jardeleza, F. H. (2018, May 11). G.R. No. 237428 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by
Solicitor General JOSE C. CALIDA, Petitioner v. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO, Respondent. Retreieved from
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2018/may2018/237428_jardeleza.pdf