Tarrosa vs. Singson

A taxpayer who does not assert a right to the public office in question lacks standing to bring an action that is essentially for quo warranto. A petition that seeks to oust a public official on the ground of an invalid appointment is a quo warranto proceeding; under Rule 66, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, such an action may be commenced only by the Solicitor General or by a person claiming to be entitled to the office unlawfully held or exercised by another.

President Fidel V. Ramos appointed respondent Gabriel C. Singson as Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas on July 2, 1993, effective July 6, 1993. Section 6, Article II of Republic Act No. 7653 (the Bangko Sentral Act) expressly provided that the Governor’s appointment “shall be subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.” The appointment was not submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation.

• Parties: Petitioner Jesus Armando A.R. Tarrosa sued as a taxpayer. Respondent Gabriel C. Singson was the appointed Governor of the Bangko Sentral; respondent Salvador M. Enriquez III was the Secretary of Budget and Management.
• The Appointment: On July 2, 1993, President Fidel V. Ramos appointed Gabriel Singson as Governor of the Bangko Sentral, effective July 6, 1993. The appointment was not submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation.
• Statutory Basis of the Challenge: Section 6, Article II of Republic Act No. 7653, the law that established the Bangko Sentral, states that the Governor “shall be head of a department and his appointment shall be subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.”
• Petitioner’s Suit: Petitioner contended that the appointment was null and void for want of confirmation. He prayed that respondent Singson be enjoined from exercising the functions of Governor and that respondent Enriquez be restrained from disbursing public funds for Singson’s salary and emoluments.
• Respondents’ Defense: Respondents argued that Congress had exceeded its constitutional powers in requiring confirmation, because the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution enumerates the officers whose appointments must be confirmed, and the Bangko Sentral Governor is not among them. They further asserted that the Bangko Sentral maintained its own budget, independent of the General Appropriations Act.

• Invalid Appointment: Petitioner argued that the appointment of respondent Singson was void ab initio because it was not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, in direct violation of the explicit requirement of Section 6, Article II of Republic Act No. 7653.
• Taxpayer Standing: Petitioner sought to enjoin the Secretary of Budget from disbursing public funds for respondent Singson’s compensation, proceeding on the premise that the illegal occupancy of the office resulted in illegal expenditure of public money.

• Unconstitutional Expansion of Confirmation Powers: Respondents contended that Congress lacked the power to require confirmation of the Bangko Sentral Governor’s appointment, because Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution exhaustively designates the officers whose appointments are subject to the Commission on Appointments and does not include the Governor of the Bangko Sentral.
• Budgetary Autonomy: Respondents maintained that the Bangko Sentral has its own budget and that its financial requirements are not governed by the General Appropriations Act, thereby breaking the chain on which the taxpayer’s suit against the Secretary of Budget was based.

• Propriety of the Petition: Whether a taxpayer who does not assert any right to the public office in question may maintain a suit to oust the incumbent, which is in the nature of a quo warranto proceeding.
• Constitutional Question: Whether Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7653, in requiring confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of the Governor of the Bangko Sentral, is valid under Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution, and whether the Court must resolve that issue.

• Propriety of the Petition: The petition was an improvidently brought quo warranto action. A petition that seeks to oust a public official on the ground of invalid title to the office is, in substance, one for quo warranto, which may only be initiated 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, Section 6 of the Revised Rules of Court. Petitioner, suing merely as a taxpayer, did not allege any entitlement to the office of Governor of the Bangko Sentral. Upholding such an action would “encourage every disgruntled citizen to resort to the courts, thereby causing incalculable mischief and hindrance to the efficient operation of the governmental machinery.”
• Constitutional Question: The constitutionality of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7653 was not resolved. Invoking the principle that a constitutional issue should not be decided unless indispensable to the disposition of the case, the Court refrained from ruling on the point. Nonetheless, it pointed to the controlling precedent of Calderon v. Carale, 208 SCRA 254 (1992), which held that Congress cannot by law expand the confirmation powers of the Commission on Appointments beyond the officers enumerated in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution.

• Proper Party in Quo Warranto — A proceeding that seeks to oust a public officer from an office unlawfully held is an action in the nature of quo warranto. Under Rule 66, Section 6 of the Revised Rules of Court, it may be commenced only by the Solicitor General or by a person claiming to be entitled to the office. A taxpayer who does not assert any title to the office cannot maintain the action.
• Avoidance of Constitutional Questions — Courts will refrain from passing upon the constitutionality of a statute unless the resolution of the constitutional question is indispensable to the determination of the case. Where the petition can be dismissed on non-constitutional grounds, the constitutional issue need not be reached.

• “To uphold the action would encourage every disgruntled citizen to resort to the courts, thereby causing incalculable mischief and hindrance to the efficient operation of the governmental machinery.”
• “We call attention to our decision in Calderon v. Carale, 208 SCRA 254 (1992) … where we ruled that Congress cannot by law expand the confirmation powers of the Commission on Appointments and require confirmation of appointment of other government officials not expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16 of Article VII of the Constitution.”

• Calderon v. Carale, 208 SCRA 254 (1992) — Cited as controlling doctrine on the exclusive list of officers requiring confirmation under the Constitution; though not applied to dispose of the case, it was identified as the rule that would govern the constitutional question.
• Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, 209 SCRA 637 (1992) — Followed for the rule that a petition for quo warranto cannot be brought by a person who does not claim to be entitled to the office in question.
• Greene v. Knox, 175 N.Y. 432 (1903) — Persuasive foreign authority; held that title to office, which must be resolved in a quo warranto proceeding, cannot be litigated in a suit to restrain salary brought by one without a claim to the office.
• Fernandez v. Torres, 215 SCRA 489 (1992) — Applied for the principle that courts must avoid passing on constitutional questions when the case can be decided on other grounds.

• Section 16, Article VII, 1987 Constitution — Enumerates the officers whose appointments by the President are subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments; relied on by respondents to argue that Congress may not add to the list.
• Section 6, Article II, Republic Act No. 7653 (The Bangko Sentral Act) — Provided that the Governor of the Bangko Sentral is head of a department and that the appointment shall be subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments; this was the provision challenged as unconstitutional.
• Rule 66, Section 6, Revised Rules of Court — Governs who may bring a quo warranto action; applied to deny the petition because petitioner was neither the Solicitor General nor a person claiming entitlement to the office.

Justices Feliciano, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, and Kapunan concurred. Chief Justice Narvasa and Justice Cruz were on leave.

Justice Padilla filed a separate concurring opinion, agreeing with the dismissal but stating he would anchor it squarely on the substantive ruling in Calderon v. Carale — that Section 6 of R.A. No. 7653 is void because Congress cannot subject appointments to confirmation beyond those enumerated in the Constitution — rather than disposing of the case on the procedural technicality of standing.