Editing Quo warranto (section)

=== 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]].