IT HAS BEEN a daily battle for Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno to encounter issues concerning both justiciable and political questions. She needs to act on the quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida as well as the impeachment charges against her filed by Atty. Lorenzo “Larry” Gadon.
What are these two cases all about? And how do they affect legal procedures?
In my 26th column, I discussed the nature and procedures of impeachment cases. Thus, in today’s article I will discuss the nature and procedure in a quo warranto case.
A quo warranto (meaning “by what warrant or authority”) is a legal procedure used to challenge an individual’s right to authority over the position he or she holds.
Section 1, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court provides that quo warranto is an “action by the Government against individuals.” It is “an action for the usurpation of a public office, position or franchise” and “may be commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.”
The said action may be brought against “a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position, or franchise; 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 an association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act.”
The solicitor general or public prosecutor may file a quo warranto petition upon the order of the President. An individual also has the right to question someone’s position as long as the petitioner is the one claiming authority over that position.
A quo warranto case may only be brought within one year from the time the cause of action or ouster arose.
When usurpation is found, the respondent is ousted and altogether excluded therefrom, and that the petitioner may recover his costs. Such further judgment may be rendered determining the respective rights in and to the public office, position or franchise of all the parties to the action as justice requires.
Now that you are well aware of the charges filed against the Chief Justice, you will witness in the later part if these charges will proceed and succeed. Remember that quo warranto and impeachment are two different procedures.
The grounds for each remedy are mutually exclusive. This means that the grounds for quo warranto cannot be subject of an impeachment, and vice versa.
Whatever may be the outcome of the quo warranto case of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, this is going to be a controversial and vital episode in the history of Philippine judiciary.
***
(Atty. Ayin Dream D. Aplasca practices her profession in Iloilo City. She may be reached thru ayindream.aplasca@gmail.com/PN)
