Case Digest (G.R. No. 179895)
Facts:
Ferdinand S. Topacio v. Associate Justice Gregory Santos Ong and the Office of the Solicitor General, G.R. No. 179895, December 18, 2008, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Ferdinand Topacio sought by certiorari and prohibition to prevent Associate Justice Gregory Santos Ong from continuing to exercise the powers and duties of a Sandiganbayan Associate Justice, alleging Ong was disqualified by reason of citizenship at the time of his 1998 appointment. Topacio relied on Article VIII, Section 7(1) of the 1987 Constitution (natural-born citizenship as a qualification for appointment to collegiate courts) and on the Court’s prior decision in Kilosbayan Foundation v. Ermita, which had enjoined Ong from accepting his Supreme Court appointment until he established that he was a natural-born Filipino.
After the Kilosbayan decision (July 3, 2007), Ong filed on July 9, 2007 a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City to amend/correct/annotate his birth certificate (S.P. Proc No. 11767-SJ). Topacio wrote the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on September 5, 2007 requesting that the OSG initiate quo warranto proceedings against Ong as an incumbent Sandiganbayan justice; the OSG replied on September 25, 2007 that it would not act until the RTC case terminated with finality.
Topacio then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition directly against Justice Ong and the OSG, arguing Ong had been unqualified in October 1998 because his birth certificate indicated Chinese citizenship and because the Court’s records had previously characterized him as a naturalized Filipino. Ong replied that Kilosbayan had merely enjoined him from accepting the Supreme Court appointment and that he voluntarily relinquished that appointment; he also informed the Court that the RTC, by Decision of October 24, 2007 (entry of finality December 27, 2007), had recognized him as a natural-born Filipino and his birth certificate had been annotated accordingly.
The parties exchanged pleadings, and petitioner filed related actions in other forums (including a certiorari petition docketed as G.R. No. 180543 and a case in the Court of Appeals). The OSG also raised technical objections (the petition’s verification and notarization), and the Court took up (1) whether the OSG committed grave abuse of discretion in declining to file quo warranto while the RTC matter was pending, and (2) whether Topacio could collaterally attack Ong’s title to office via certiorari/prohibition (or maintain quo warranto in his own name) despite the pendency and eventual finality of the RTC adjudication of Ong’s citizenship.
Issues:
- Did the Office of the Solicitor General commit grave abuse of discretion in declining to file quo warranto against Justice Ong while Ong’s RTC case to correct his birth certificate was pending?
- May a private litigant collaterally attack a public officer’s title to office by way of certiorari and prohibition (or maintain quo warranto in his own name) without showing a clear right to the contested office?
- Has petitioner shown the clear and indubitable right required of a private person who files quo warranto in his own name?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)