PubCorp Case Tarrosa vs.

Singson 232 SCRA 553 Facts: Gabriel Singson, respondent, was appointed as Governor of the Bangko Sentral by then President Fidel Ramos on July of 1993 The petitioner, Jesus Tarrosa in his capacity as a taxpayer files a petition of prohibition questioning the above appointment on grounds that such appointment w as not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. He seeks to remove Singson from office until he is confirmed by the Commission o n Appointments He also questions Salvador Enriquez, then Secretary of Budget and Management for disbursing public funds to pay salaries and emoluments to Singson while in offi ce Tarrosa grounds his claims upon Section 6 of RA 7635 The governor of the Bangko Sentral shall be head of a department and his appointm ent shall be subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. The respondent s defense is that Congress has exceeded its legislative power in RA 7635 and that the appointment of Singson in not one of those that need confirma tion by the Commission on Appointments as provided in Section 16 of Article 7 of the Philippine Constitution. The President shall nominate and with consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public minist ers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or nav al captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this cons titution. Respondents also say that the BSP has its own budget and is not subject to the p rovisions of the General Appropriations Act. ISSUE: 1. WON Tarrosa has the capacity to challenge the appointment 2. WON the appointment of Singson was valid. RULING: The petition in nature is a quo warranto in that it seeks to oust Singson from p ublic office. However, a quo warranto proceeding can only be instituted by the S olicitor General or by a person claiming to be entitled to a public office. In t he case at bar, Tarrosa has no capacity to file such claim whatsoever. If such i s granted, then it encourages every disgruntled citizen to come to court over an y appointment they do not seem fit. Because Tarrosa has no legal capacity, his w hole case crumbles and there is no need to question the disbursement of salaries . Also, the appointment in question is valid as in the decision of Calderon vs. Ca rale Congress cannot by law expand the confirmation powers of the Commission on Appoin tments and require confirmation of appointments of other government officials no t expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16, Article 7 of the Cons titution. Therefore the Supreme Court denies the petition.