Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 46 views

    Case Digest (Short) Republic Vs Sereno

    Uploaded by

    Arvy Agustin
    Sereno argues that impeachable officials like the President and Vice President can only be removed through impeachment and cannot be subject to quo warranto petitions. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 5 of Article VIII does not limit the Court's quo warranto jurisdiction and excludes impeachable officials. A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine a public official's right to hold an office and remove them if their eligibility or appointment is invalid, according to the Rules of Court. Therefore, Sereno's contention that impeachable officials have absolute protection from quo warranto petitions is incorrect.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest (Short) Republic Vs Sereno

    Uploaded by

    Arvy Agustin
    46 views1 page
    Sereno argues that impeachable officials like the President and Vice President can only be removed through impeachment and cannot be subject to quo warranto petitions. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 5 of Article VIII does not limit the Court's quo warranto jurisdiction and excludes impeachable officials. A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine a public official's right to hold an office and remove them if their eligibility or appointment is invalid, according to the Rules of Court. Therefore, Sereno's contention that impeachable officials have absolute protection from quo warranto petitions is incorrect.

    Original Title

    Case Digest (short) Republic vs Sereno

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Sereno argues that impeachable officials like the President and Vice President can only be removed through impeachment and cannot be subject to quo warranto petitions. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 5 of Article VIII does not limit the Court's quo warranto jurisdiction and excludes impeachable officials. A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine a public official's right to hold an office and remove them if their eligibility or appointment is invalid, according to the Rules of Court. Therefore, Sereno's contention that impeachable officials have absolute protection from quo warranto petitions is incorrect.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    46 views1 page

    Case Digest (Short) Republic Vs Sereno

    Uploaded by

    Arvy Agustin
    Sereno argues that impeachable officials like the President and Vice President can only be removed through impeachment and cannot be subject to quo warranto petitions. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 5 of Article VIII does not limit the Court's quo warranto jurisdiction and excludes impeachable officials. A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine a public official's right to hold an office and remove them if their eligibility or appointment is invalid, according to the Rules of Court. Therefore, Sereno's contention that impeachable officials have absolute protection from quo warranto petitions is incorrect.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Republic vs.

    Sereno - June 19, 2018

    866 SCRA 494, G.R. No. 237428, EN BANC

    Quo warranto

    Sereno argues that quo warranto petitions may be filed against the President and Vice President
    under the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) Rules “only because the Constitution specifically
    permits” them under Section 4, Article VII. She also contends that all impeachable officials
    cannot be sued through quo warranto because they belong to a “privileged class” of officers who
    can be removed only through impeachment.

    Is her contention correct?

    No. 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.

    You might also like