Title
Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Springer
Case
G.R. No. 26979
Decision Date
Apr 1, 1927
Quo warranto case challenging the constitutionality of a committee's voting power over government-owned stock in a private corporation, involving separation of powers and executive authority.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 145222)

Statutory Provision at Issue

Section 4 of Act No. 2705, as amended by §2 of Act No. 2822, declared that “the voting power of all stock owned by the Government of the Philippine Islands shall be vested exclusively in a committee consisting of the Governor-General, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.” The Government subscribed over 99% of the Company’s 30,000 shares, making this committee determinative of director elections.

Executive Order No. 37 and Stockholders’ Meeting

On November 9, 1926, Executive Order No. 37—citing opinions of the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General and U.S. Attorney-General—held the legislative presiders’ participation in such committees null under the Organic Act and vested all voting power in the Governor-General alone. Despite notice, the Senate President and House Speaker met on November 29 to resolve how Government shares should be voted at the December 6 special shareholders’ meeting. Both the Governor-General’s representative and the legislative presiders appeared at that meeting, cast conflicting ballots, and the Chairman recognized the legislative vote, electing Springer, Costas, and Hilario.

Procedural Posture and Quo Warranto Invocation

The Government filed an original quo warranto to oust the defendants from their directorships and to substitute Government-slate directors (Agcaoili, Heath, Lagdameo). The trial demurred, admitting the material facts. The Court’s task was purely legal: whether the legislative presiders’ role in voting Government stock was constitutional under the Organic Act and related laws.

Organic Act’s Separation of Powers and Executive Authority

Under the Organic Act of 1916, all “supreme executive power” is vested in the Governor-General (secs. 21–22). Executive functions must be “directly under the Governor-General” or within departments he supervises. The Act confers “general supervision and control” over government agencies and charges him with “faithful execution of the laws.” Legislative power is separately vested in the Philippine Legislature, subject to congressional approval and review; it has no authority to execute laws.

Nature of the Voting Committee and the Offices Involved

The Court held that membership in the voting committee constitutes a public office and that voting Government-owned shares in an instrumentality created by the Legislature is an executive function—part of administering government property and fulfilling statutory duties. Such functions cannot be delegated to the Legislature or its members without violating the Organic Act’s separation-of-powers mandate.

Severability and Enforcement of §4’s Valid Portion

Applying severability principles, the Court struck from §4 the provision naming the Senate President and House Speaker, leaving intact the Legislature’s valid corporate-formation provision and vesting Government stock voting power solely in the Governor-General. The Judiciary will “read the statute as if the unconstitutional provision was not there,” so long as the remaining text effectuates legislative intent (promoting coal development).

Majority Judgment and Relief Granted

The Court overruled the demurrer, declared the legislative presiders’ participation unconstitutional, and granted quo warranto

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.