Nacionalista Party vs.

De Vera

The petitioners invoked that respondent's appointment to the Chairmanship of the Commission on
Elections is void ab initio because he was already a member of the Commission when he was
appointed its chairman and such appointment is in fact a reappointment, which is expressly
prohibited by the Constitution. In this jurisdiction the writ of prohibition cannot be availed of as a
substitute for quo warranto. The ground invoked by petitioners would be proper in quo warranto
proceedings but not in a petition for prohibition.|||

“Quo warranto and not prohibition is the proper remedy to inquire into the validity of respondent's
appointment as chairman of the Commission on Elections.”

This case kasi similar to Funa is about the reappointment in COMELEC (which is a constitutional
commission na impeachable officer rin). In this case, nirecommend ng court na ang proper remedy
is quo warranto and not petition for prohibition. Pero nagrule parin naman SC here na valid parin
yung appointment kay De Vera since although na reappoint siya its for the term of office nung
chairman na namatay so basically icocontinue niya lang yung remaining term ni chairman na
namatay.

My opinion basically sinabi lang naman ni SC na ang proper remedy daw is quo warranto pero
wala sa decision na diniscuss yung pagiging impeachable officer niya, so we argue na if another
case was filed for petition for quo warranto wala rin guarantee kung tatanggapin sa since in this
case wala naming discussion regarding the commissioner as an impeachable officer.