By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
THE DOCTRINE OF INVOLUNTARY RETIREMENT
RE: LETTER OF MRS. MA. CHIRISTINA ROCO CORONA REQUESTING THE GRANT OF RETIREMENT AND OTHER BENEFITS TO THE LATE FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA AND HER CLAIM FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION AS HIS WIFE UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946
Second Part of a Two-Part Series
In the first part of the series, we discussed the ratio or justification of the Supreme Court in granting the request of the wife of the late Chief Justice, Hon. Renato Corona, who was removed by impeachment almost ten (10) years ago. In the absence of a clear law prohibiting such award, the Court awarded the retirement benefits as well as survivorship pension to Mrs. Christina Corona ruling that the conviction of impeachment only has the effect of removing the impeachable officer from his office and barring him from holding any other public office. To impose the penalty of imprisonment, civil indemnity, or restitution and/or forfeiture of retirement benefits, civil, criminal, and administrative cases should be filed against the convicted impeachable officer.
Legally and on humanitarian considerations, the ruling of the Supreme Court on this issue is sound and correct. It is interesting, however, that the Supreme Court went to the extent of assailing the impeachment proceedings and conviction when it held:
“Whether this would be finally addressed by a compelling authority in the proper forum, the late Chief Justice Corona has already been removed by impeachment. What was done is fait accompli and now a final, unalterable reality. For the future’s worth, it is herein stressed that the SALN is a tool for public transparency, never a weapon for political vendetta. The Filipino people live, toil, and thrive in democracy, but the rule of law should not stand parallel to the rule of the mob. Toe this line, and the nation may eventually behold the laws that the Courts have forever sworn to uphold battered and bent. The Court finds this ironic occasion to quote the same prayer involved that fateful day of May 29, 2012, a silent plea that now rings ever so loudly and relevantly:
Mangibabaw nawa ang respeto sa bawat isa. Mangibabaw nawa ang paggalang. Mangibabaw nawa ang katarungan. At higit sa lahat, mangibabaw nawa ang tama.”
But is it not that the removal of former Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno was also based on her failure to declare and submit her SALN during her application for the top magistrate of the land? Isn’t it that SALN was used in that case also for political vendetta because Sereno was appointed by the former President, Benigno Simeon Aquino III? Isn’t it that the same issue on SALN is being thrown at incumbent and sitting Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, among other grounds, in a bid to remove him? From the foregoing, can it be argued that later on, in a much friendlier political climate and judicial landscape, former Chief Justice and former Associate Justice Sereno can claim her retirement benefits as well?
In the Decision granting the retirement benefits of the late Chief Justice Corona, the Supreme Court, made a distinction between removal of the late Chief Justice Corona by impeachment and that of the former Chief Justice Sereno by a Petition for Quo Warranto and held that:
“It has been elaborated in Republic vs. Sereno that while both impeachment and quo warranto seek the ultimate removal of an incumbent government officer, the two differ as to nature, jurisdiction, grounds, the applicable procedural rules, and limitations. 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 by either by the Solicitor General on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines or by an individual claiming the public office in issue, both of which petitions are cognizable by the Supreme Court. Impeachment proceedings seek to confirm and vindicate the breach of 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. The 1987 Constitution as supplemented by the internal rules of procedure of the Congress, directs the course of impeachment proceedings. Quo warranto cases, on the other hand, are directed by the Rules of Court. The end result of an impeachment proceedings is the removal of the public officer, and his or her perpetual disqualification from holding public office. On the other hand, when a quo warranto petition is granted ouster from office is likewise meted, but the Court can likewise impose upon the public officer additional penalties such as reimbursement of costs pertaining to the rightful holder of the public office and such further judgment determining the rights in and to the public office, position, or franchise of all parties to the action as justice requirements.”
In the dispositive portion in the ruling granting the quo warranto against former Chief Justice Sereno, it did not state that her retirement benefits are deemed forfeited. Although the decision on a quo warranto implies that Sereno was not qualified or should not have been appointed to the post in the first place, and hence is not entitled to the benefits and emoluments arising therefrom, it may be argued that under the doctrine of operative fact, or prior to her removal, she was entitled to the salaries and benefits arising from her occupying the post of Chief Justice. It may also be argued that no civil, criminal, and administrative case has been filed against her which would result in the forfeiture of her retirement benefits. It should be noted that she previously worked in Government on various capacities even before her appointment as magistrate of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is not prohibited from rendering pro hac vice ruling such as its grant of retirement benefits equivalent to the position of Chief Justice to former Senior Associate Justice Antonio C. Carpio. The reason being is that Justice Carpio, while not destined to be a Chief Justice due to timing, politics and delicadeza, acted several times as Acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. From the foregoing, it is not impossible for the Supreme Court to act on a future request of former Chief Justice Sereno for her retirement benefits.