Short answer. A quo warranto action — a verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against anyone usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding a public office or franchise, an officer who forfeited office by law, or an association acting as a corporation without lawful authority.
What the law says
An action for the usurpation of a public office, position or franchise may be commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against: (a) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise; (b) A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provision of law, constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his office; or (c) An association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act.
Rule 66, Section 1 — Action by Government against individuals. Read the full provision →
Brought in the name of the Republic
A quo warranto action for usurpation of a public office, position, or franchise is commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. It is framed as the government asserting its interest in who lawfully holds public authority, not as an ordinary private lawsuit, reflecting the idea that the office or franchise itself belongs to the public, not to whoever currently occupies it.
Three categories of respondent
The rule covers three distinct situations: someone who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position, or franchise; a public officer who commits or allows an act that the law says forfeits their office; and an association acting as a corporation in the Philippines without being legally incorporated or lawfully authorized to do so. Each of these three respondent categories involves a different way of wrongfully holding or exercising public authority.
Why this matters for the affected office
Because the action targets the legality of someone's hold on public authority, it is the vehicle for resolving disputes over who is entitled to occupy a position, rather than a dispute over how that person is performing in the role. The remaining sections of the rule set out who may bring it and how, including the circumstances under which a private individual claiming entitlement to the office may initiate the case in their own right.
Why the action runs in the Republic's name
Framing the petition as an action of the Republic reflects that a public office or franchise is a public trust rather than private property, so the government itself has standing to challenge someone wrongfully holding or exercising it, independent of whether any particular private individual also has a personal claim to the position. That structure is part of what separates quo warranto from an ordinary civil dispute between two private parties.
Related provisions
- Rule 66, Section 1 — Action by Government against individuals
- Rule 66, Section 2 — When Solicitor General or public prosecutor must commence action
- Rule 66, Section 3 — When Solicitor General or public prosecutor may commence action with permission of court