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.
Facts:
Gabriel C. Singson was appointed Governor of the Bangko Sentral by President Fidel V. Ramos on July 2, 1993. Jesus Armando Tarrosa, as a "taxpayer", filed a petition for prohibition questioning the appointment of Singson for not having been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments as required by the provisions of Section 6 of R.A. No. 7653, which established the Bangko Sentral as the Central Monetary Authority of the Philippines. The Secretary of Budget and Management was impleaded for disbursing public funds in payment of the salaries and emoluments of respondent Singson.
In their comment, respondents claim that Congress exceeded its legislative powers in requiring the confirmation by the CA of the appointment of the Governor of the Bangko Sentral. They contend that an appointment to the said position is not among the appointments which have to be confirmed by the CA, citing Section 16 of Article VI of the Constitution.
Held:
SC dismissed the petition.
The instant petition is in the nature of a quo warranto proceeding as it seeks the ouster of respondent Singson and alleges that the latter is unlawfully holding or exercising the powers of Governor of the Bangko Sentral. Such a special civil action can only be commenced by the Solicitor General or by a "person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position unlawfully held or exercised by another."
In Sevilla v. Court of Appeals, 209 SCRA 637 (1992), we held that the petitioner therein, who did not aver that he was entitled to the office of the City Engineer of Cabanatuan City, could not bring the action for quo warranto to oust the respondent from said office as a mere usurper.
Likewise in Greene v. Knox, 175 N.Y. 432 (1903), 67 N.E. 910, it was held that the question of title to an office, which must be resolved in a quo warranto proceeding, may not be determined in a suit to restrain the payment of salary to the person holding such office, brought by someone who does not claim to be the one entitled to occupy the said office.
However for the information of all concerned, we call attention to our decision in Calderon v. Carale, 208 SCRA 254 (1992), with Justice Isagani A. Cruz dissenting, 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. (Tarrosa vs. Singson, G.R. No. 111243, May 25, 1994)
0
Comments
