Definition of Quo Warranto

Quo warranto: Whatever start wrong will end wrong

Hyatt, Janeth S.
Sarmiento, Roman

Quo Warranto

Quo warranto (Latin for “by what authority”) is a legal action most typically brought to resolve
disputes concerning the right to hold public office or exercise a franchise. 1 It provides the only
method to challenge a claim to public office – have proven to be an effective means of
preserving integrity of public office while minimizing the threat of unlimited litigation for those
holding office.2 Quo warranto could be used to bring an action against any person who
unlawfully usurped, intruded into, held or exercised any public office or franchise. 3

Quo warranto evolves into a statutory proceeding to determine whether holders of public
office or franchises are legally entitled to hold that office or exercise those powers. 4 The matter
is always brought and prosecuted on behalf of the public. 5

Quo warranto is intended to prevent a continuing exercise of an authority, unlawfully asserted,

and is not appropriate to try moot or abstract questions. 6 Quo warranto serves to end a
continuous usurpation. It tries title to public office. 7

It lays against a person who claimed or usurped an office, franchise or liberty to inquire to what
authority he supported his claim in order that the right to the office might be determined. 8

Quo warranto is a special form of legal action used to resolve a dispute over whether a specific
person has the legal right to hold public office that he or she occupies. 9 It does not evaluate the
person’s performance in the office.

Quo warranto is considered a civil proceeding. 10

1
California Attorney General’s Office 1990, p. 9., source:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/ag_opinions/quo-warranto-guidelines.pdf

2
Same
3
Same
4
Same
5
Same
6
Same
7
Same
8
Same
9
Legal Opinions of the Attorney General- Quo Warranto – Right to Public office
10
Imposition of Fine in Quo Warranto Proceedings. Columbia Law Review vol. 12 No. 6
 Quo warranto petition is a remedy that resolves disputes pertaining to a
claim to a public office. It determines whether an officer of the government is
eligible for the office he or she occupies or whether his or her appointment is
valid.11 The other way to remove an officer of the government like the Chief
Justice is through quo warranto, removing the officer since that from the
beginning he/she is not entitled for the post.

The Court said that while a quo warranto action talks about a public
official’s qualifications in holding the office from the outset, impeachment talks
about acts done while that public official is in office, and presupposes that the
public official holds legal title to such an office. Hence, the Court says that the
“causes of action in the two proceedings are unequivocally different” as the
issue in a quo warranto proceeding is basically a public officer’s “title to hold a
public office” while in impeachment, it is a given that the official holds the
office under legal color of authority, and the “only issue being whether or not
she committed impeachable offenses to warrant her removal from office.” 12 In
impeachment it ends the reign of an officer due to his/her illegal actions while
serving his/her term and quo warranto ends his/her term due to that his/her
post is void ab initio.

11
Regalado, F (2010) Remedial Law Compendium, vol I. Mandaluyong: National Bookstore.
12
Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, at 1 (J. Leonen, dissenting opinion).