Scribd
Upload
106 views2 pages

Ans No. 1 Quo Warranto

The document discusses when a quo warranto petition is the proper remedy. It provides three relevant cases: 1) A 1997 case found quo warranto is only for cases involving usurpation of authority, not misuse of franchise. Violations of a franchise should be raised with Congress. 2) A 2018 case regarding former Chief Justice Sereno found her appointment was subject to quo warranto since she failed to file a required SALN prior to appointment, rendering it invalid from the beginning. 3) A legal expert notes quo warranto is only applicable when the defect is prior to receiving a franchise or appointment. Alleged problems after receiving a franchise cannot be addressed by quo warranto, but

Uploaded by

Junelyn T. Ella
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
106 views2 pages

Ans No. 1 Quo Warranto

The document discusses when a quo warranto petition is the proper remedy. It provides three relevant cases: 1) A 1997 case found quo warranto is only for cases involving usurpation of authority, not misuse of franchise. Violations of a franchise should be raised with Congress. 2) A 2018 case regarding former Chief Justice Sereno found her appointment was subject to quo warranto since she failed to file a required SALN prior to appointment, rendering it invalid from the beginning. 3) A legal expert notes quo warranto is only applicable when the defect is prior to receiving a franchise or appointment. Alleged problems after receiving a franchise cannot be addressed by quo warranto, but

Uploaded by

Junelyn T. Ella
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

1.

Whether or not the a Petition for Quo Warranto is the proper remedy in this
case?

No. That a quo warranto petition before the Supreme Court is not the proper
remedy since the 1997 Rules of Court limit the filing of quo warranto petition only
to actions involving usurpation and not such alleged misuse of franchise. The
proper venue to raise violations of a franchise is in Congress which granted the
franchise.

In the case of Republic of the Philippines vs Sereno, GR No. 237428, 11 May


2018:

SC has original jurisdiction over an action for quo warranto. Section 5, Article VIII
of the Constitution states that the SC has original jurisdiction over petitions for quo
warranto. This jurisdiction is concurrent with the Court of Appeals (CA) and the
Regional Trial Court (RTC). Section 7, Rule 66 of Rules of Court provides that the
venue for an action for quo warranto is in the RTC of Manila, CA, or SC when
commenced by the Solicitor General.
While the hierarchy of courts serves as a general determinant of the appropriate
forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs, a direct invocation of the SC’s
original jurisdiction in this case is justified considering that the qualification of a
Member of the Court is in question, and the issue is of public concern.
The petition for quo warranto is of transcendental importance. The instant petition
is one of first impression and of paramount importance to the public in the sense
that the qualification, eligibility and appointment of an incumbent Chief Justice,
the highest official of the Judiciary, are being scrutinized through an action for quo
warranto.
For the guidance of the bench and the bar, and to obviate confusion in the future as
to when quo warranto as a remedy to oust an ineligible public official may be
availed of, and in keeping with the Court’s function of harmonizing the laws and
the rules with the Constitution, the Court herein demarcates that an act or omission
committed prior to or at the time of appointment or election relating to an official’s
qualifications to hold office as to render such appointment or election invalid is
properly the subject of a quo warranto petition, provided that the requisites for the
commencement thereof are present. On the contrary, acts or omissions, even if it
relates to the qualification of integrity, being a continuing requirement but
nonetheless committed during the incumbency of a validly appointed and/or
validly elected official, cannot be the subject of a quo warranto proceeding, but of
something else, which may either be impeachment if the public official concerned
is impeachable and the act or omission constitutes an impeachable offense, or
disciplinary, administrative or criminal action, if otherwise.
Transcribed interview of Former Justice Panganiban re Quo warranto
petition filed by Solgen Calida:

“Ang quo warranto petition ay ginagamit lamang kong ang depekto e prior na
bigyan ng franchise or bigyan ng appointment yong tumatanggap. Ang sabi po ng
Supreme Court dun e si CJ Sereno ay pwedeng tanggalin by quo warranto sapagkat
bago sya ma-appoint as CJ of the Supreme Court depektoso na ang kanyang
appointment sabi ng Sc e sapagka’t siya’y hindi nag file ng SALN. Yog SALN
required by the constitution kaya daw po pag hindi ka nag file ng SALN e your
appointment is defected from the very beginning samantalang dito sa ABS-CBN
wala naman nagsasabi na hindi valid yong franchise, ang sinasabi lamang
pagkatapos ibigay yong franchise nagkaroon ng problema maski sabihin nating
problema nga e hindi ko iko-quo warranto yun. Ang Supreme Court na ang nagsabi
sa kaso ni CJ Sereno kapag ang kaso or ang depekto e bago yong appointment nya
quo warranto ang kailangan pero kong pagkatapos na hindi na quo warranto kong
hindi impeachment na.”

You might also like