Tarrosa v. Singson
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the appointment of Gabriel C. Singson as Governor of the Bangko Sentral Ng Pilipinas. The petitioner, Jesus Armando A.R. Tarrosa, acting as a taxpayer, challenged the validity of this appointment on the grounds that it was not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, as allegedly required by law. Procedural History: The case originated with a petition for prohibition filed by Jesus Armando A.R. Tarrosa. The petition sought to prevent respondent Singson from performing his duties as Governor of the Bangko Sentral and to stop respondent Salvador M. Enriquez, the Secretary of Budget and Management, from disbursing public funds for Singson's salary and emoluments. The petition was filed directly with the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioner invoked Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7653, which establishes the Bangko Sentral, arguing that the Governor's appointment requires confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. The respondents, in their comment, contended that Congress exceeded its legislative authority by imposing this confirmation requirement, citing Section 16 of Article VII of the Constitution, which enumerates the appointments requiring confirmation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, primarily on the procedural ground that the petitioner, not claiming entitlement to the office, could not initiate a quo warranto proceeding, and thus the constitutional question was not properly before the Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for prohibition filed by a "taxpayer" questioning the appointment of the Governor of the Bangko Sentral Ng Pilipinas, without claiming entitlement to the office, is the proper remedy and whether the petitioner has the legal personality to file such a petition. Whether Section 6 of R.A. No. 7653, requiring confirmation by the Commission on Appointments for the Governor of the Bangko Sentral, is constitutional. Whether the disbursement of public funds for the salaries and emoluments of the respondent Governor can be enjoined.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court dismissed the petition on procedural grounds and refrained from passing upon the constitutionality of Section 6 of R.A. No. 7653.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy and petitioner's legal personality: The Court held that the petition was in the nature of a quo warranto proceeding, which seeks the ouster of a public officer allegedly holding office unlawfully. Such an action can only be commenced by the Solicitor General or by a person claiming to be entitled to the public office. Petitioner, who did not aver entitlement to the office of Governor of the Bangko Sentral, lacked the legal personality to file the petition. To allow every disgruntled citizen to file such suits would cause "incalculable mischief and hindrance to the efficient operation of the governmental machinery." The Court cited Sevilla v. Court of Appeals and Greene v. Knox in support of this principle. On the constitutionality of Section 6 of R.A. No. 7653: The Court dismissed the petition on procedural grounds, rendering it unnecessary to resolve the constitutional question. The Court invoked the principle that a judicial inquiry into a constitutional question should only be undertaken when its resolution is indispensable for the determination of the case, citing Fernandez v. Torres. However, for the information of all concerned, the Court called attention to its decision in Calderon v. Carale, which ruled that Congress cannot by law expand the confirmation powers of the Commission on Appointments to include officials not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. On the injunction against disbursement of public funds: Since the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, the issue of enjoining the disbursement of public funds for the salaries and emoluments of the respondent Governor became moot and academic. The Court found no need to resolve this issue as the primary action, which questioned the legality of the appointment itself, had already been dismissed.
Main Doctrine
A taxpayer's suit questioning the legality of an appointment to a public office, where the petitioner does not claim entitlement to the office, is dismissible for lack of legal personality. Furthermore, Congress cannot, by law, expand the confirmation powers of the Commission on Appointments beyond those expressly enumerated in the Constitution.