In 2007, Court of Appeals Justice (CA Justice) Dread Dong (J. Dong) was appointed to the Supreme Court (Court) as Associate Justice. Immediately after the appointment was announced, several groups questioned his qualification to the position on the ground that he was not a natural born Filipino citizen. In the same year, the Court issued an Order enjoining him from accepting the appointment or assuming the position and discharging the functions of his office until he is able to successfully complete all the necessary steps to show that he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. However, he continued to exercise his functions as CA Justice.
Since the qualification of a natural born citizen applies as well to CA Justices, Atty. Dacio, a practicing lawyer, asked the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), through a verified request, to initiate a quo warranto proceeding against J. Dong in the latter’s capacity as incumbent CA Justice. The OSG refused to initiate the action on the ground that the issue of J. Dong’s citizenship was still being litigated in another case.
When the OSG refused to initiate a quo warranto proceeding, Atty. Dacio filed a petition for certiorari against the OSG and certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong. The petition for certiorari against the OSG alleged that the OSG committed grave abuse of discretion when it deferred the filing of a quo warranto proceeding against J. Dong, while the petition for certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong asked the Court to order him to cease and desist from further exercising his powers, duties and responsibilities as CA Justice. In both instances, Atty. Dacio relied on the fact that, at the lime of J. Dong’s appointment as CA Justice, his birth certificate indicated that he was a Chinese citizen and his bar records showed that he was a naturalized Filipino citizen.
(a) May the OSG be compelled, in an action for certiorari, to initiate a quo warranto proceeding against J. Dong? (2.5%)
(b) Does Atty. Dacio have the legal personality to initiate the action for certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong? (2.5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
(a) No, the OSG cannot be compelled to file quo warranto. (b) No, Atty. Dacio lacks legal personality. Under Rule 66, the OSG exercises discretion in filing quo warranto petitions, which cannot be controlled by
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
May the Office of the Solicitor General be compelled via certiorari to institute a quo warranto proceeding?
The OSG exercises discretionary authority in filing quo warranto that cannot be controlled by certiorari absent grave abuse.
Who has legal standing as a private individual to file an action for quo warranto under Rule 66?
Under Rule 66, a private individual may file quo warranto only if claiming entitlement to the public office.
Under Rule 66, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, in whose name is a quo warranto proceeding brought?
Quo warranto is an action brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against a usurper of public office.
Why does a practicing lawyer lacking claim to a judicial office lack locus standi to challenge the justice's title?
Choices available with full access.
What constitutes a valid ground for the OSG to defer filing a quo warranto petition against a public officer?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. OSG Discretionary Power
Under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, the Office of the Solicitor General exercises discretionary authority in determining whether to initiate a petition for quo warranto against an incumbent public officer. The Solicitor General cannot be compelled through a petition for certiorari or mandamus to file a quo warranto action unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. Deferring the filing of a quo warranto suit while the contested qualification or citizenship issue is pending litigation in another forum constitutes a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than grave abuse.
2. Locus Standi Requirement
Under Rule 65 and Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, a private individual seeking to oust a public officer or challenge title to public office must possess legal standing. To institute an action challenging title to public office directly, the private individual must claim to be entitled to the disputed public position. A practicing lawyer or concerned citizen who does not claim any title or right to the office lacks direct legal interest and locus standi to institute quo warranto, certiorari, or prohibition proceedings against an incumbent judicial officer.
3. Quo Warranto Nature
Quo warranto is an extraordinary legal remedy issued to determine the right of a person to hold a public office or franchise. It is a proceeding brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office. Because public office concerns the public interest, the power to institute quo warranto is primarily vested in the State through the Solicitor General or a public prosecutor, safeguarding public offices from frivolous suits brought by private litigating parties.