“Quo Warranto” had again filled the recent news as the Office of the Solicitor General manifested its intention to file a Quo warranto petition against Bamban, Tarlac Mayor Alice Guo. Most Filipinos were first introduced to this term or proceeding when the Supreme Court ousted then Chief Magistrate Maria Lourdes Sereno.
Thus, in this week’s edition, we will focus our discussion to this so called Quo Warranto.
Quo Warranto is the Latin for by “what warranty or authority”. The procedure governing Quo Warranto proceeding is set forth in Rule 66 of the Rules of Court.
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. It involves a judicial determination of the right to the use or exercise of the office.[1] Simply put, it is an action to remove or oust a person unlawfully holding and/or exercising a public office or position.
Section 1 of Rule 66 states that an action for the usurpation of a public office, position or franchise may be commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against: (1) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise; (2) A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provision of law, constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his office; or (3) An association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act.
Who may commence or start an action for quo warranto?
The Solicitor General or a public prosecutor, when directed by the President of the Philippines, or when he has good reason to believe that any case specified in Section 1 can be established by proof.[2] The Solicitor General or a public prosecutor may also bring such an action at the request and upon the relation of another person, but the same should be with the permission of the court in which the action is to be commenced.[3] The Office of the Solicitor General represents the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer.
In addition to that, a person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position usurped or unlawful held or exercised by another may also commence an action for quo warranto.[4]
An action for quo warranto can be brought only in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area where the respondent or any of the respondents resides, but when the Solicitor General commences the action, it may be brought in a Regional Trial Court in the City of Manila, in the Court of Appeals, or in the Supreme Court.[5]
When the respondent is found guilty of usurping into, intruding into, or unlawfully holding or exercising a public office or position, a judgment shall be rendered ousting and excluding such respondent from said office or position. Such further judgment may be rendered in determining the respective rights in and to the public office or position of all the parties to the action as justice requires.
As provided under Section 11 of, Rule 66, an action for quo warranto shall be commenced within one (1) year after the cause of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position, arose. However, worthy to state that this limitation is applicable only if the one who commenced the action is a person claiming to be the rightful holder of the office or position and would not apply if the same was commence by the Solicitor General or public prosecutor.
As enunciated in Republic vs Sereno[6], there are two reasons why the one-year prescriptive period in Section 11 cannot apply to the Solicitor General (or public prosecutor) first, the conditions that qualify the commencement of the running of the period, i,e., deprivation of the petitioner’s right to the public office and taking over such position which is usurped by another, do not appropriately apply to the Solicitor General or the State which he represents; and second, prescription does not lie against the State.
[1] G.R. No. 237428, June 19, 2018
[2] Section 2, Rule 66
[3] Section 3, Rule 66
[4] Section 5
[5] Section 7
[6] G.R. No. 237428, June 19, 2018