Quo warranto

Last updated

In the English-American common law, quo warranto (Medieval Latin for "by what warrant?") is a prerogative writ issued by a court which orders someone to show what authority they have for exercising some right, power, or franchise they claim to hold. The writ of quo warranto still exists in the United States, although it is uncommon, but it has been abolished in England and Wales. Quo warranto is also used, with slightly different effect, in the Philippines.

Contents

Early history

With the spread of royal justice in the 12th and 13th centuries, private franchises and liberties were increasingly called upon to uphold the king's peace: to act against "malefactors and peace breakers, so that it may appear that you are a lover of our peace". [1] From 1218 onwards, [2] royal Eyres also began using the old writ of quo warranto – a court order to show proof of authority, as for example (literally) "By what warrant are you the sheriff?" – to investigate the origins of such franchises. [3] An inquest of 1255 began examining such liberties nationwide; [4] and the same enquiry was taken up again by King Edward I of England in 1278, when he decreed in the Statute of Gloucester that "We must find out what is ours, and due to us, and others what is theirs, and due to them". [5]

From one point of view this can be seen as an attempt to investigate and recover royal lands, rights, and franchises in England, [6] in particular those lost during the reign of his father, King Henry III of England. [7] [8] From another, it was less of an attack on franchises as a clarification of them: in Hilda Johnstone's words, "Edward's aim, it is clear, was from the first not abolition but definition". [5]

Statute of Quo Warranto
Act of Parliament
Coat of Arms of England (-1340).svg
Parliament of England
Long title Statutum de Quo Warranto
Citation 18 Edw. 1
(Ruffhead: 18 Edw. 1. Stat. 2)
Dates
Repealed15 August 1879
Other legislation
Repealed by Civil Procedure Acts Repeal Act 1879
Status: Repealed
Statutum de Quo Warranto Novum
Act of Parliament
Coat of Arms of England (-1340).svg
Parliament of England
Long title Statutum de Quo Warranto Novum
Citation 18 Edw. 1
(Ruffhead: 18 Edw. 1. Stat. 3)
Dates
Repealed15 August 1879
Other legislation
Repealed by Civil Procedure Acts Repeal Act 1879
Status: Repealed

A similar ambiguity surrounds the role of the justices that, from 1278 to 1294, Edward dispatched throughout the Kingdom of England to inquire "by what warrant" English lords claimed their liberties and exercised jurisdiction, including the right to hold a court and collect its profits. Some of the justices demanded written proof in the form of charters, others accepted a plea of "immemorial tenure"; [9] and resistance [10] and the unrecorded nature of many grants meant that eventually, by the Statute of Quo Warranto (18 Edw. 1) (1290), the principle was generally accepted that those rights peacefully exercised since 1189 – the beginning of the reign of Richard I, which is the legal definition in England of the phrase "time immemorial" [6] [11] – were legitimate. [12]

Publication

The quo warranto pleas from the reigns of Edward I, Edward II and Edward III were published by the Record Commission in 1818. [13]

Later developments

The most famous historical instance of quo warranto was the action taken against the Corporation of London by Charles II in 1683. [14] The King's Bench adjudged the charter and franchises of the City of London to be forfeited to the Crown, though this judgment was reversed by the London, Quo Warranto Judgment Reversed Act 1689 shortly after the Glorious Revolution.

But the remodelling of the City of London was only part of a wider remodelling of some forty chartered parliamentary boroughs by the Crown [15] – a policy taken up again in 1688 by James II, when some thirty-five new charters were issued after quo warranto produced the surrender of the old ones. [16] This Quo Warranto remodelling or 'dissolution' of the parliamentary corporations gave point to the claim by William III that "our expedition is intended for no other design but to have a free and lawful parliament assembled", and underpinned the charge in the Bill of Rights that James had been "violating the freedom of election by members to serve in parliament". [17]

Modern quo warranto

While quo warranto remains in use in the United States, the Philippines, and other jurisdictions, in some jurisdictions that have enacted judicial review statutes, the prerogative writ of quo warranto has been abolished.

Australia

Quo warranto writs have been abolished in the Australian states of New South Wales (as of the Supreme Court Act 1970) [18] and Queensland (as of the Judicial Review Act 1991). [19]

England and Wales

The writ of quo warranto and its replacement, the information in the nature of a quo warranto are either obsolete or have been abolished. Section 30 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 grants to the High Court the power to issue an injunction to restrain persons from acting in offices in which they are not entitled to act and to declare the office vacant if necessary.

United States

Quo warranto could be brought against a corporation when it misuses its franchise. In 1890, the Supreme Court of Ohio wrote:

The corporation has received vitality from the state. It continues during its existence to be the creature of the state, must live subservient to its laws, and has such powers and franchises as those laws have bestowed upon it, and none others. As the state was not bound to create it in the first place, it is not bound to maintain it after having done so, if it violates the laws or public policy of the state, or misuses its franchises to oppress the citizens thereof. [20]

In 1876, the Pennsylvania senate passed a resolution instructing the Attorney General to begin quo warranto proceedings to revoke the charter of the Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York Railroad. [21]

In the modern United States, quo warranto usually arises in a civil case as a plaintiff's claim (and thus a "cause of action" instead of a writ) that some governmental or corporate official was not validly elected to that office or is wrongfully exercising powers beyond (or ultra vires ) those authorized by statute or by the corporation's charter.

In New York State, the former writ of quo warranto has been codified. Per Executive Law § 63-b, only the Attorney General, at his or her discretion, "may maintain an action, upon his own information or upon the complaint of a private person, against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises within the state a franchise or a public office, civil or military, or an office in a domestic corporation." [22]

Philippines

Jose Calida, above, is credited with substantially expanding the quo warranto power, after his arguments were looked upon with favor by the Supreme Court in Republic v. Sereno. Jose Calida - 2017 (cropped).jpg
Jose Calida, above, is credited with substantially expanding the quo warranto power, after his arguments were looked upon with favor by the Supreme Court in Republic v. Sereno .

A quo warranto petition was, before the appointment of Jose Calida as Solicitor General, a very seldom used Philippine extraordinary writ. Its name derives from the Latin question quo warranto, which means "by what authority?" [note 1] [23] In its early days, during the American colonial period, quo warranto was mostly used to challenge a democratic election, that is, to make the claim that the person who is holding an office is a usurper, and that someone else deserves the office, e.g., due to electoral fraud or ineligibility. [24] Indeed, this is the only way the term is used in law professor Ernesto C. Salao's [note 2] widely cited 858-page book The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines (2001 ed.). [25]

It has come to be understood that it can be used in extraordinary cases to unseat judicial appointees, and impeachable officials, not only to challenge elections. Some, such as Ranhilio Aquino, [note 3] argue this due to the fact that the President and Vice President were explicitly enumerated as vulnerable to quo warranto by the Supreme Court sitting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, [26] [27] and, unlike many other constitutions, Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution does not exclusively grant the power of impeachment to Congress. [26]

Quo warranto of non-elected appointees

Quo warranto petitions, when successful, do not "remove" someone from office—they declare the very appointment itself null and void ab initio , meaning that the office was never legally held as it has been declared to have been assumed under false pretenses. [28] This is precisely what happened in the highly controversial quo warranto petition against Maria Lourdes Sereno. Sereno had served on the Supreme Court of the Philippines as de facto Chief Justice of the Philippines from 2012 to 2018, and as a regular Associate Justice since August 2010, when she was appointed by President Benigno Aquino III. Instead of removing Sereno from office by the mechanism of impeachment, Callida chose to use what one justice called this "road less travelled" of quo warranto.

Corporate franchise quo warranto

Quo warranto was also used, once again by Calida, to challenge the continued operation of ABS-CBN after the expiration of its Congressional franchise. This use of quo warranto in a dispute over licensure was as novel as it was literal: it strips away the traditions surrounding the use of quo warranto and refocuses quo warranto on the meaning of its name, asking by what legal authority does ABS-CBN continue to operate. However, the expiration of the franchise and later actions by the National Telecommunications Commission made Calida's quo warranto petition moot.

See also

Related Research Articles

Robert Burnell was an English bishop who served as Lord Chancellor of England from 1274 to 1292. A native of Shropshire, he served as a minor royal official before entering into the service of Prince Edward, the future King Edward I of England. When Edward went on the Eighth Crusade in 1270, Burnell stayed in England to secure the prince's interests. He served as regent after the death of King Henry III of England while Edward was still on crusade. He was twice elected Archbishop of Canterbury, but his personal life—which included a long-term mistress who was rumoured to have borne him four sons—prevented his confirmation by the papacy. In 1275 Burnell was elected Bishop of Bath and Wells, after Edward had appointed him Lord Chancellor in 1274.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Writ</span> Formal written order issued by an entity

In common law, a writ is a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicial jurisdiction; in modern usage, this body is generally a court. Warrants, prerogative writs, subpoenas, and certiorari are common types of writs, but many forms exist and have existed.

"Prerogative writ" is a historic term for a writ that directs the behavior of another arm of government, such as an agency, official, or other court. It was originally available only to the Crown under English law, and reflected the discretionary prerogative and extraordinary power of the monarch. The term may be considered antiquated, and the traditional six comprising writs are often called the extraordinary writs and described as extraordinary remedies.

A warrant is generally an order that serves as a specific type of authorization, that is, a writ issued by a competent officer, usually a judge or magistrate, that permits an otherwise illegal act that would violate individual rights and affords the person executing the writ protection from damages if the act is performed.

In English law, a writ of scire facias is a writ founded upon some judicial record directing the sheriff to make the record known to a specified party, and requiring the defendant to show cause why the party bringing the writ should not be able to cite that record in his own interest, or formerly why, in the case of letters patent and grants, the patent or grant should not be annulled and vacated. Largely withdrawn by 1947, its use in the administrative court remains one of the two ways in which a Royal Charter can be involuntarily revoked, the other being primary legislation in Parliament. In the United States, the writ has been abolished under federal law but may still be available in some state legal systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of the Philippines</span> Highest court in the Philippines

The Supreme Court (Filipino: Kataas-taasang Hukuman; colloquially referred to as the Korte Suprema, is the highest court in the Philippines. The Supreme Court was established by the Second Philippine Commission on June 11, 1901 through the enactment of its Act No. 136, an Act which abolished the Real Audiencia de Manila, the predecessor of the Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chief Justice of the Philippines</span> Highest judicial officer

The chief justice of the Philippines presides over the Supreme Court and is the highest judicial officer of the government of the Philippines. As of April 5, 2021, the position is currently held by Alexander Gesmundo, who was appointed by President Rodrigo Duterte following the early retirement of his predecessor, Diosdado Peralta, in March 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Presbitero Velasco Jr.</span> Filipino judge (born 1948)


Presbitero Jose Velasco Jr. is the incumbent Governor of Marinduque and was a former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. He was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on March 31, 2006.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Teresita de Castro</span> Filipino judge (born 1948)

Teresita Leonardo de Castro is a Filipina who served as the 24th chief justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines; she was appointed by President Rodrigo Duterte on August 28, 2018. She assumed the vacated position once her predecessor, Maria Lourdes Sereno, was removed via a quo warranto petition ; making De Castro the de jure 24th chief justice, and the first female chief justice of the Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">George Treby (judge)</span>

Sir George Treby JP (1643–1700), of Plympton, Devon, and of Fleet Street in the City of London, was Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and six times Member of Parliament for the Rotten Borough of Plympton Erle, Devon, largely controlled by him and his descendants until abolished by the Great Reform Act of 1832.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lucas Bersamin</span> Chief Justice of the Philippines from 2018 to 2019

Lucas "Luke" Purugganan Bersamin is a Filipino lawyer and jurist who currently serves as the 40th Executive Secretary of the Philippines. Bersamin previously served in the Supreme Court of the Philippines for 10 years, first as an associate justice from 2009 to 2018 and then as the 25th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines from 2018 until his retirement in 2019. He was named by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the high court as an associate justice on April 2, 2009. Prior to becoming an associate justice, he was a member of the Court of Appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Maria Lourdes Sereno</span> De facto Chief Justice of the Philippines from 2012 to 2018

Maria Lourdes "Meilou" Aranal-Sereno is a Filipina lawyer and judge who served as de facto chief justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines from 2012 until 2018.

Kapamilya Box Office (KBO) was a Philippine pay-per-view television channel. It was initially launched in May 2015 as a pay-per-view channel for the historic boxing match between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr. Originally registered as the "TVplus Xtra Channel," it became inactive after the event. In April 2016, the channel was rebranded as KBO.

The judiciary of the Philippines consists of the Supreme Court, which is established in the Constitution, and three levels of lower courts, which are established through law by the Congress of the Philippines. The Supreme Court has expansive powers, able to overrule political and administrative decisions, and with the ability to craft rules and law without precedent. It further determines the rules of procedure for lower courts, and its members sit on electoral tribunals.

<i>Quo warranto</i> petition against Maria Lourdes Sereno 2018 petition in the Supreme Court of the Philippines

The quo warranto petition against Maria Lourdes Sereno, filed before the Supreme Court of the Philippines, led to the landmark case Republic v. Sereno, which nullified Maria Lourdes Sereno's appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, finding that she never lawfully held the office due to a lack of integrity for failing to file certain required financial documents. As a result, she was ousted from the Supreme Court as Chief Justice. The Court handed down its ruling on May 11, 2018. The case began with a filing before the House of Representatives of an impeachment demand, the accusations in which Solicitor General Jose Calida used as the factual basis for his quo warranto petition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tranquil Salvador III</span> Filipino lawyer and educator

Tranquil Gervacio S. Salvador III is a Filipino lawyer, educator, and civic leader. He has served as spokesperson and member of the defense panel for the impeachment of the then-Chief Justice Renato Corona and handled other notable cases of Filipino personalities and corporations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Midas Marquez</span> Filipino judge

Jose Midas Pascual Marquez is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines since 2021, and was previously the ex-member of the Office of the Court Administrator and the Supreme Court spokesperson of the Philippines. Marquez holds the record of being the longest-serving SC Court Administrator. Marquez was included in the final shortlist of official nominees as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court by Judicial and Bar Council, with the recommendation of Chief Justice Gesmundo, before being passed to the President for the appointment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Youth Reform Movement</span>

Youth Reform Movement Philippines (YRMPH) is a non-profit sociopolitical organization composed of the youth sector registered within the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission, operating globally through a network of young Filipino university students and youth leaders with particular interest in Philippine political and sociocivic affairs. The organization was formerly known as Youth for Miriam, the youth arm of the 2016 presidential campaign of Miriam Defensor Santiago, initially partnering with People's Reform Party, the political party of Defensor Santiago.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Larry Gadon</span> Filipino politician and disbarred lawyer (born 1958)

Lorenzo "Larry" Gacilo Gadon is a Filipino politician, singer and disbarred lawyer who currently serves as the Presidential Adviser for Poverty Alleviation for President Bongbong Marcos since 2023. Gadon ran for a senatorial seat in 2016, 2019 and 2022 election, all of which were unsuccessful. Gadon has gained notoriety for his use of vulgar language and his hardline stance against perceived liberals and communists. Since 2019, he is one of the co-hosts of Karambola on DWIZ-AM.

References

  1. ↑ Henry III, 1237, in Helen Cam Law-finders and Law-makers (London 1962), pp. 38–39.
  2. ↑ Helen Cam, Law-finders and Law-makers (London 1962), p. 39.
  3. ↑ S. H. Steinberg (ed.), A New Dictionary of British History (London 1963) p. 299.
  4. ↑ Helen Cam, Law-finders and Law-makers (London 1962) pp. 39–40.
  5. 1 2 J. R. Tanner (ed.), The Cambridge Medieval History, Vol VII (Cambridge, 1932), p. 394.
  6. 1 2 Clanchy From Memory to Written Record, p. 3.
  7. ↑ Harris, Nicholas; Charles Purton Cooper (1831). Public Records. p. 74.
  8. ↑ Carpenter, David A. (1996). The Reign of Henry III. p. 88. ISBN   978-1-85285-137-8.
  9. ↑ Helen Cam, Law-finders and Law-makers (London, 1962), p. 41.
  10. ↑ Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, p. 7.
  11. ↑ Clanchy From Memory to Written Record, p. 152.
  12. ↑ S. H. Steinberg (ed.), A New Dictionary of British History (London, 1963), p. 299.
  13. ↑ Illingworth 1818.
  14. ↑ Shortt, John (1888), Informations (criminal and quo warranto) mandamus and prohibition, American law series, C. H. Edson and company, p. 137.
  15. ↑ J. H. Plumb, The Growth of Political Stability in England (London 1986) pp. 55-6.
  16. ↑ M. Ashley, The Glorious Revolution (London, 1966), p. 112.
  17. ↑ M. Ashley, The Glorious Revolution (London, 1966) pp. 205–207.
  18. ↑ Sn 12 Quo Warranto Supreme Court Act 1970, New South Wales Consolidated Acts.
  19. ↑ Sn 42 Abolition of quo warranto, Judicial Review Act 1991, Queensland Consolidated Acts.
  20. ↑ Lewis, Lawrence; Hamilton, Adelbert; Merrill, John Houston; McKinney, William Mark; Kerr, James Manford; Thomson, John Crawford (1890). The American and English Railroad Cases: A Collection of All the Railroad Cases in the Courts of Last Resort in America and England. Edward Thompson Company. pp. 332–334.
  21. ↑ House, Pennsylvania General Assembly; Representatives, Pennsylvania General Assembly House of (1876). Journal of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. George Helmbold. p. 917.
  22. ↑ "New York Consolidated Laws, Executive Law - EXC § 63-b. Action by attorney-general against usurper of office or franchise". FindLaw. 1 Jan 2021.
  23. ↑ John Van de Kamp (1990). Quo warranto: resolution of disputes -- right to public office (PDF). Sacramento: California Attorney General's Office. p. 1.
  24. ↑ Mack, William; Hale, William Benjamin (1920). Corpus Juris: Being a Complete and Systematic Statement of the Whole Body of the Law as Embodied in and Developed by All Reported Decisions. Vol. 20. New York: American Law Book Company. p. 210.
  25. ↑ Ernesto C. Salao (2001). The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines (2001 ed.). Quezon City: Rex Book Store. pp. xxvii, 714, 717. ISBN   978-971-23-3252-4.
  26. 1 2 Aquino, Ranhilio (2018-04-13). "Much ado about quo warranto". Manila Standard. Retrieved 2020-06-09.
  27. ↑ 2010 Rules of Presidential Electoral Tribunal (Resolution AM 10-04-29-SC, Rule 16). Supreme Court of the Philippines. May 4, 2010. p. 12.
  28. ↑ Cabato, Regine (2018-06-20). "Lawyers: Supreme Court cases with tiebreaking Sereno vote can be questioned". CNN Philippines. Archived from the original on 2020-06-09. Retrieved 2020-06-09.

Notes

  1. ↑ Sometimes rendered as "by whose authority?", although quo literally means "where" or "why".
  2. ↑ As of January 2018, associate dean of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Law.
  3. ↑ As of 2011, dean of the San Beda University College of Law. See Rex G. Rico (2011-11-24). "Value of a non-lawyer's opinion on purely legal issues". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved 2020-06-09.

Sources

Edition of proceedings

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.