Editing Quo warranto (section)

== Modern {{lang|la|quo warranto}} ==
While {{lang|la|quo warranto}} remains in use in the United States, the Philippines, India and other jurisdictions, in some jurisdictions that have enacted [[judicial review]] statutes, the prerogative writ of {{lang|la|quo warranto}} has been abolished.

=== Australia ===
{{lang|la|Quo warranto}} writs have been abolished in the [[Australian states]] of [[New South Wales]] (as of the Supreme Court Act 1970)<ref>[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/sca1970183/s12.html Sn 12 Quo Warranto] ''Supreme Court Act 1970'', New South Wales Consolidated Acts.</ref> and [[Queensland]] (as of the Judicial Review Act 1991).<ref>[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/jra1991158/s42.html Sn 42 Abolition of quo warranto], ''Judicial Review Act 1991'', Queensland Consolidated Acts.</ref>

=== England and Wales ===
The writ of {{lang|la|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 of Justice|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 ===
{{lang|la|Quo warranto}} could be brought against a corporation when it misuses its franchise. In 1890, the [[Supreme Court of Ohio]] wrote:

{{blockquote|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.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Lewis |first1=Lawrence |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vtkpAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22The+corporation+has+received+vitality+from+the+state%22;+it+continues+during+its+existence+to+be+the+creature+of+the+state;&pg=PA334 |title=The American and English Railroad Cases: A Collection of All the Railroad Cases in the Courts of Last Resort in America and England |last2=Hamilton |first2=Adelbert |last3=Merrill |first3=John Houston |last4=McKinney |first4=William Mark |last5=Kerr |first5=James Manford |last6=Thomson |first6=John Crawford |date=1890 |publisher=Edward Thompson Company |pages=332–334 |language=en}}</ref>}}

In 1876, the Pennsylvania senate passed a resolution instructing the Attorney General to begin {{lang|la|quo warranto}} proceedings to [[Judicial dissolution|revoke the charter]] of the [[Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York Railroad]].<ref>{{Cite book |last1=House |first1=Pennsylvania General Assembly |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=a3JMAAAAMAAJ&dq=Baltimore,+Philadelphia+and+New+York+Railroad+quo+warranto&pg=PA538 |title=Journal of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania |last2=Representatives |first2=Pennsylvania General Assembly House of |date=1876 |publisher=George Helmbold |pages=917 |language=en}}</ref>

In the modern [[United States]], {{lang|la|quo warranto}} usually arises in a [[Civil law (common law)|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)|New York State]], the former writ of {{lang|la|quo warranto}} has been [[codification (law)|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."<ref>{{cite web |date=1 Jan 2021 |title=New York Consolidated Laws, Executive Law - EXC § 63-b. Action by attorney-general against usurper of office or franchise |url=https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/executive-law/exc-sect-63-b.html |website=FindLaw}}</ref>

=== Philippines ===
[[File:Jose_Calida_-_2017_(cropped).jpg|thumb|277x277px|[[Jose Calida]], above, is credited with substantially expanding the {{lang|la|quo warranto}} power, after his arguments were looked upon with favor by the [[Supreme Court of the Philippines|Supreme Court]] in ''[[Republic v. Sereno]]''.]]

A {{lang|la|quo warranto}} petition was, before the appointment of [[Jose Calida]] as [[Solicitor General of the Philippines|Solicitor General]], a very seldom used Philippine [[extraordinary writ]]. Its name derives from the Latin question {{lang|la|quo warranto}}, which means "by what authority?"<ref group="note">Sometimes rendered as "by whose authority?", although {{lang|la|[[wiktionary:quo#Latin|quo]]}} literally means "where" or "why".</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=John Van de Kamp |url=https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/ag_opinions/quo-warranto-guidelines.pdf |title=Quo warranto: resolution of disputes -- right to public office. |publisher=[[California Attorney General's Office]] |year=1990 |location=Sacramento |pages=1 |author-link=John Van de Kamp}}</ref> In its early days, during the [[American colonial period in the Philippines|American colonial period]], {{lang|la|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 [[Passive suffrage|ineligibility]].<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Mack |first1=William |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qXcZAAAAYAAJ&q=quo+warranto+election+philippines&pg=PA210 |title=Corpus Juris: Being a Complete and Systematic Statement of the Whole Body of the Law as Embodied in and Developed by All Reported Decisions |last2=Hale |first2=William Benjamin |publisher=American Law Book Company |year=1920 |volume=20 |location=New York |pages=210 |language=en}}</ref> Indeed, this is the only way the term is used in [[law professor]] Ernesto C. Salao's<ref group="note">As of January 2018, [[associate dean]] of the [[Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Law]].</ref> widely cited 858-page [[Law book|book]] ''The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines'' (2001 {{Abbr|ed.|edition}}).<ref>{{Cite book |last=Ernesto C. Salao |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zU4-AQAAIAAJ&q=quo+warranto+election+philippines |title=The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines |publisher=Rex Book Store |year=2001 |isbn=978-971-23-3252-4 |edition=2001 |location=Quezon City |pages=xxvii, 714, 717 |language=en}}</ref>

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,<ref group="note">As of 2011, [[Dean (education)|dean]] of the [[San Beda University]] College of Law. See {{Cite news |last=Rex G. Rico |date=2011-11-24 |title=Value of a non-lawyer's opinion on purely legal issues |newspaper=Philippine Daily Inquirer |url=https://opinion.inquirer.net/17869/value-of-a-non-lawyer%E2%80%99s-opinion-on-purely-legal-issues |access-date=2020-06-09}}</ref> argue this due to the fact that the President and Vice President were explicitly enumerated as vulnerable to {{lang|la|quo warranto}} by the Supreme Court [[Sub nomine|sitting as]] the [[Presidential Electoral Tribunal]],<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Aquino |first=Ranhilio |date=2018-04-13 |title=Much ado about quo warranto |work=Manila Standard |url=https://manilastandard.net/opinion/columns/pens-es-by-fr-ranhilio-aquino/263049/much-ado-about-quo-warranto.html |access-date=2020-06-09}}</ref><ref>{{Cite act|type=Resolution|index={{abbr|AM|Administrative matter}} 10-04-29-SC|date=May 4, 2010|article=16|article-type=Rule|legislature=Supreme Court of the Philippines|title=2010 Rules of Presidential Electoral Tribunal|pages=12|url=https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/2010-rules-of-presidential-electoral-tribunal/}}</ref> and, unlike many other constitutions, Article 11 of the [[1987 Constitution]] does not exclusively grant the power of impeachment to Congress.<ref name=":4" />

==== {{lang|la|Quo warranto}} of non-elected appointees ====
{{See also|Quo warranto petition against Maria Lourdes Sereno|label 1=''Quo warranto'' petition against Maria Lourdes Sereno}}

{{lang|la|Quo warranto}} petitions, when successful, do not "remove" someone from office—they declare the very appointment itself [[null and void]] {{lang|la|[[ab initio]]}}, meaning that the office was never legally held as it has been declared to have been assumed under [[false pretenses]].<ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Cabato |first=Regine |date=2018-06-20 |title=Lawyers: Supreme Court cases with tiebreaking Sereno vote can be questioned |language=en |work=CNN Philippines |url=https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2018/06/20/fajardo-vitangcol-supreme-court-tiebreaker-cases-sereno-vote-question.html |access-date=2020-06-09 |archive-date=2020-06-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200609152916/https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2018/06/20/fajardo-vitangcol-supreme-court-tiebreaker-cases-sereno-vote-question.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> This is precisely what happened in the highly controversial [[Quo warranto petition against Maria Lourdes Sereno|''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 of the Philippines|Associate Justice]] since August 2010, when she was appointed by [[President of the Philippines|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 {{lang|la|quo warranto}}.

==== Corporate franchise {{lang|la|quo warranto}} ====
{{See also|ABS-CBN franchise renewal controversy#Quo warranto petition|label 1=ABS-CBN franchise renewal controversy § ''Quo warranto'' petition}}

{{lang|la|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 {{lang|la|quo warranto}} in a dispute over [[licensure]] was as novel as it was literal: it strips away the traditions surrounding the use of {{lang|la|quo warranto}} and refocuses {{lang|la|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 {{lang|la|quo warranto}} petition [[Mootness|moot]].