Tarrosa vs. Gabriel C. Singson

Factual Background

The President appointed respondent Gabriel Singson as Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Petitioner challenged the appointment as null and void for lack of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. The petition rested primarily on Section 6 of R.A. No. 7653, which provides that the Governor of the Bangko Sentral "shall be subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments." Respondents countered that Congress exceeded its power in imposing confirmation and further asserted that the Bangko Sentral has an independent budget not subject to the General Appropriations Act.

Relief Sought

Petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to enjoin respondent Singson from performing the duties of Governor until confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. Petitioner also sought to enjoin respondent Enriquez, Secretary of Budget and Management, from disbursing public funds for respondent Singson's salaries and emoluments.

Procedural Posture

The case reached the Court by petition for prohibition filed by petitioner as a self-described "taxpayer." Respondents filed a comment contesting the petition. The Court denied the petition and made no pronouncement as to costs. Justice Padilla filed a separate opinion concurring in the result. Chief Justice Narvasa and Justice Cruz were on leave.

Nature of the Action and Standing

The Court treated the petition as being in the nature of quo warranto because it sought the ouster of respondent Singson and alleged unlawful holding of public office. The Court noted that a quo warranto proceeding may be commenced only by the Solicitor General or by a "person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position unlawfully held or exercised by another" under Rule 66, Sec. 6, Revised Rules of Court. The Court cited Castro v. Del Rosario, Acosta v. Flor, Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, and Greene v. Knox to support the proposition that one who does not claim entitlement to the office lacks standing to institute quo warranto.

The Parties' Contentions

Petitioner contended that Section 6 of R.A. No. 7653 required confirmation of the Governor's appointment by the Commission on Appointments and that respondent Singson's appointment was therefore void for want of such confirmation. Respondents contended that Congress had no authority to expand the confirmation powers of the Commission on Appointments beyond those offices listed in Art. VII, Sec. 16, 1987 Constitution, and that the Governor of the Bangko Sentral is not among the officers whose appointments Constitutionally require confirmation. Respondents also asserted that the Bangko Sentral's separate budget rendered certain budgetary injunctions inappropriate.

Ruling of the Court

The Court denied the petition and declined to enjoin respondent Singson from exercising the functions of Governor or respondent Enriquez from disbursing funds for his salary. The Court found that the petition failed on procedural grounds because petitioner did not allege that he was entitled to the office sought and therefore lacked the capacity to maintain a quo warranto action. The Court also stated that, since the petition failed procedurally, it was unnecessary to decide whether disbursement of salaries could be enjoined or whether Section 6 of R.A. No. 7653 was constitutional.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court rested its decision on the limitation on the proper initiators of quo warranto proceedings under Rule 66, Sec. 6, Revised Rules of Court. The Court reasoned that allowing a mere citizen who does not claim title to an office to institute quo warranto would invite widespread litigation and impede governmental functions. The Court invoked the prudential principle that a court should not decide a constitutional question unless its resolution is indispensable to the determination of the case, citing Fernandez v. Torres. Although the Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of Section 6 of R.A. No. 7653, it called attention to its prior decision in Calderon v. Carale, in which the Court held that Congress may not, by law, expand the confirmation powers of the Commission on Appointments beyond those offices enumerated in Art. VII, Sec. 16, 1987 Constitution.

Separate Opinion

Justice Padilla concurred in the result. He stated