GR 111243; (May, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111243 , May 25, 1994
JESUS ARMANDO A.R. TARROSA, petitioner, vs. GABRIEL C. SINGSON and HON. SALVADOR M. ENRIQUEZ III, respondents
FACTS
Petitioner Jesus Armando A.R. Tarrosa, filing as a taxpayer, sought to prohibit respondent Gabriel C. Singson from performing the functions of Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) and to enjoin respondent Salvador M. Enriquez, Secretary of Budget and Management, from disbursing public funds for Singson’s salary and emoluments. The petition challenged the validity of Singson’s appointment by President Fidel V. Ramos on July 2, 1993, on the ground that it was not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments as allegedly required by Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7653 (The New Central Bank Act). This provision states that the Governor of the Bangko Sentral “shall be head of a department and his appointment shall be subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.” Respondents countered that Congress exceeded its legislative power by imposing such a confirmation requirement, arguing that under Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution , the appointment of the BSP Governor is not among those expressly requiring confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
ISSUE
Whether or not the petition for prohibition, which seeks to declare the appointment of the BSP Governor invalid for lack of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments and to enjoin the disbursement of funds for his salary, is properly brought by the petitioner.
RULING
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The Court held that the action was essentially in the nature of a quo warranto proceeding, as it sought the ouster of respondent Singson for allegedly unlawfully holding office. Under the Revised Rules of Court (Rule 66, Section 6), such an action can only be commenced by the Solicitor General or by a person claiming to be entitled to the public office in question. Since petitioner Tarrosa did not claim any right to the office of BSP Governor, he lacked the legal standing to bring the suit. To allow such an action would enable any disgruntled citizen to resort to the courts, causing mischief and hindering government operations. Given this dispositive technical ground, the Court found it unnecessary to resolve the constitutional question regarding the validity of the confirmation requirement in R.A. No. 7653 . However, the Court cited its ruling in Calderon v. Carale (208 SCRA 254) for information, which held that Congress cannot by law expand the confirmation powers of the Commission on Appointments to include officials not mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution .