I have always thought that the only thing that could remove a high-ranking government official such as a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines was through an impeachment proceedings. But this week, due to a very unusual and many have even called it "unconstitutional" petition for quo warranto filed by the Solicitor General, the Chief Justice was successfully ousted from office.
What is Quo Warranto?
Quo Warranto is a writ or legal action requiring a person to show by what warrant an office or franchise is held, claimed, or exercised.
Source: Google Dictionary
The term "Quo Warranto" is a latin word which means "By what warrant or authority". It is a legal means to challenge or oppose a person's rights or powers in the position he holds.
Simply speaking, it is an official order directing someone from the government to show that they really have the authority to exercise some rights or power for the position they claim to hold.
Quo Warranto can be used against the following:
- An individual who snatches, enters or illegally holds an office or position in the government or a franchise
- A government official who did or is currently doing activities may be deemed by the law as unlawful
- An organization or association that operates as a corporation in the Philippines without proper registration or power to operate as a corporation
Who can file the "quo warranto" petition?
According to Section 2, Rule 65, Rules of Court, The Solicitor General can file the quo warranto petition:
When Solicitor General or public prosecutor must commence action. — The Solicitor General or a public prosecutor, when directed by the President of the Philippines, or when upon complaint or otherwise he has good reason to believe that any case specified in the preceding section can be established by proof, must commence such action.
Source : Section 2, Rule 65, Rules of Court
Or a private individual who believes that he has the right for the usurped position, Section 5, Rule 66, Rules of Court:
When an individual may commence such an action. — A person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another may bring an action therefor in his own name.
Source: Section 5, Rule 66, Rules of Court
Thoughts
What I don't understand about all this is that why would anyone challenge someone's authority when she have been in the position for years now. The 'former' Chief Justice that was ousted just this week, have been the 24th de facto Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines for almost 6 years now. She started taking hold of that position since 2012.
While the "quo warranto" petition filed for her might be warranted due to the discrepancies in her taxes and her SALN. I still think that it was a little unconstitutional for the current administration to do this. This is clearly a witch-hunt to everyone who tries to oppose their administration.
If the Chief Justice, the highest official in the judiciary is easily taken down like that because she doesn't give in to what the current administration wants. Then what else could the little fishes who holds little to no power do. Clearly, democracy might be dead now in the philippines.
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by jlordc from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows. Please find us at the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
If you would like to delegate to the Minnow Support Project you can do so by clicking on the following links: 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.