Educational Requirement as a Standard Qualification in Government Service

ENRIQUE MORALES v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

G.R. No. L-29658, November 29, 1968
J. Castro
Educational attainment, besides service qualification, has been a requirement for several
institutions not only in the government but also in private corporations in order to qualify for a
certain position. However, does the possession of a bachelors degree truly measure the
professionalism of a person in his work?
In 1934, Enrique Morales started his career as a patrolman in the police force. After years
of genuine service and professionalism in his field, he became captain and then a major in the
Manila Police Department (MPD). Later, he was promoted as the chief of the detective bureau of
the MPD. In addition to his promotion, he became a lieutenant colonel in 1954.
Brigadier General Ricardo Papa was the current chief of police of Manila then, but he
later resigned in March 14, 1968. Due to such occurrence, Morales took over by being
designated as acting chief of police of Manila. Also, he was given a provisional appointment to
the same position by the mayor of Manila.
His designation and appointment was sent to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) for
approval. The designation of Morales was approved. On the other hand, his appointment was
rejected by Commissioner Civil Service Abelardo Subido. According to the commissioner, he
rejected Moraless appointment because he failed to meet some requisites provided by the law
particularly the minimum educational and civil service eligibility requirements in order to
become a chief of police in the city. With this, Subido endorsed others who are qualified to take
the position. Moreover, Subido announced in the newspapers that the position of chief of police
of Manila was vacant. He provided the requirements and qualifications which a person who is
interested in the position should possess.
The desire of Morales to become chief of police of Manila drove him to be included in
the list of qualified and eligible applicants where the mayor would pick the next appointee for the
said position. He demanded Subido through a letter, endorsed by the mayor, that he should be
added in the list because he has duly served the MPD as its captain for more than three years
which entails him to be qualified. Nevertheless, Subido still refused.
Disheartened and disappointed with the commissioners decision, Morales decided to file
a petition that would compel Subido to include him in the five next ranking eligible and
qualified persons. He interpreted Section 10 of the Police Act of 1966 in such a way that there
were four classes of persons who could be appointed as chief of a city police agency wherein: (1)
he holds a bachelor's degree from a recognized institution of learning and has served either in the
Armed Forces of the Philippines or the National Bureau of Investigation, (2) or has served as
chief of police with exemplary record, (3) or has served in the police department of any city with
the rank of captain or its equivalent therein for at lesast three years; (4) or any high school
graduate who has served as officer in the armed forces for at least eight years with the rank of

captain and/or higher. He claims that he belongs in the third class because of the service he
rendered in the police department of Manila for three years qualifies him for the appointment.
In his point of view, having a bachelors degree is not an assurance that the person is a
good policeman. He added that the test of professionalism is one who, from a low ranking
position such as a patrolman became a lieutenant due to the hard work that was exerted in the
field, just like him. He further stated that educational attainment is not the only basis in placing
the local police service on a professional level. Furthermore, he raises Section 9 of the same act
that if a person has rendered five years of satisfactory service in a police agency, he is already a
civil service eligible.
Six justices concurred with Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, the ponente, and Justice Dizon
concurring with the result of the case. The Court ruled that Morales is neither qualified nor
eligible for appointment as chief of police of Manila for his argument was fallacious. There lies a
difference between eligibility and qualification because the law allows compensation of service
for a person's lack of eligibility but not for his lack of educational qualification. Regarding
Section 9 which Morales has invoked, it does not apply to his case because it only covers
members of a police agency and not the appointment of a chief of police of a city.
The requirement of a bachelors degree does not contradict the professionalism of the
police service rather it is even the best way to carry out the said policy. In the Courts decision, it
has laid down the purpose of the law in requiring both educational and service qualifications of
those seeking appointment as chief of police by citing the original provision of House Bill 6951
which has become the Police Act of 1966 as well as providing the exchanges made by the
legislative body during the deliberations of the said bill.
In the House of Representatives, Veloso stated that There is no reason why I should
object to these minimum requirements; but I find such requirements very rigid because it would
not allow a man to rise from the ranks. Take a policeman who rose from the ranks. He became a
corporal, a sergeant, a police lieutenant. Shouldn't he be allowed to go higher? If he merited it, he
should also be appointed chief of police of a city or municipality.
Amante replied and said, During our committee discussions, I objected to this provision
of the bill because it is a very high qualification. However, somebody insisted that in order to
professionalize our police system and also to attain a high standard of police efficiency, we must
have a chief of police who has a college degree. The point which the gentleman is now raising
was brought up by one Member in the sense that a policeman who rose from the ranks through
serious hard work, even after serving for fifteen or twenty years in the police force, cannot
become chief of police for lack of a college degree. The gentleman's objection is a very good and
reasonable one. I assure him if he bring up during the period of amendments, I will consider it.
Although there was an agreement in deleting such requirement during the period of
amendment, it did not take place because no motion was made. When the bill reached the Senate,
it was referred to the Committee on Government Reorganization which reported a substitute
measure. The substitute measure clears the ambiguity in the meaning of the phrase "and who has
served either in the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the National Bureau of Investigation. It

is to be pointed out that the service in the AFP or the NBI was intended to be in the capacity of
captain for at least three years.
Senator Francisco Rodrigo requested that the phrase "has served as officer in the Armed
Forces" to be inserted in the provision which reads: No person may be appointed chief of a city
police agency unless he holds a bachelor's degree and has served either in the Armed Forces of
the Philippines or the National Bureau of Investigation or police department of any city and has
held the rank of captain or its equivalent therein for at least three years or any high school
graduate who has served the police department of a city or who has served as officer in the
Armed Forces for at least 8 years with the rank of captain and/or higher."
The Rodrigo amendment was an addition to the phrase, "who has served the police
department of a city for at least 8 years with the rank of captain and/ or higher," wherein
Morales, who is a high school graduate and finished second year of the law course, could
possibly qualify. Although later the phrase was dropped and only the Rodrigo amendment was
retained. The Court further said that Because of the suggested possibility that the deletion was
made by mistake, the writer of this opinion personally and painstakingly read and examined the
enrolled bill in the possession of the legislative secretary of the Office of the President, and
found that the text of section 10 of the Act is as set forth in the beginning of this opinion. Under
the enrolled bill theory, the Act bearing the signatures required for it to become a law, it is
already deemed as importing absolute verity and as binding on the courts.
Likewise, the phrase "has served as chief of police with exemplary record" was added
when the House of Representative and the Senate met in conference committee, which resulted
to the existence of such phrase in section 10 of the Act.
The ponente pointed out the significance of the amendments made that It logically
means that except for that vagrant phrase who has served the police department of a city for at
least 8 years with the rank of captain and/or higher - a high school graduate, no matter how long
he has served in a city police department, is not qualified for appointment as chief of police.
Even if the argument presented by Morales is sensible, it is not within the power of the
courts to fill in the law rather it is the Congress that shall address such inclusion of desirable
enlargements. Castro cited Frankfurter, an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court,
where he said that "An omission at the time of enactment, whether careless or calculated, cannot
be judicially supplied however much later wisdom may recomment the inclusion. The vital
difference between initiating policy, often involving a decided break with the past, and merely
carrying out a formulated policy, indicates the relatively narrow limits within which choice is
fairly open to courts and the extent to which interpreting law is inescapably making law.
Several amendments have been made with the Police Act of 1966 and one of which was
the qualification for the appointment of a chief of a city police agency that was made in 1974.
The provision states that No person may be appointed chief of a city police agency unless he
holds a bachelor's degree from a recognized institution of learning and has served in the Armed
Forces of the Philippines or the National Bureau of Investigation or the National Police
Commission or has served as chief of police with exemplary record, or has served in the police
department of any city with the rank of captain or its equivalent therein for at least three years; or

any person who has completed at least two (2) years college and who has served as officer in the
Armed Forces or the National Bureau of Investigation or the National Police Commission or the
police department of a city for at least six years with the rank of captain or its equivalent.
With the great changes that happened in the country over time, Congress has passed
numerous laws. It included the passage of Republic Act No. 6975 on December 13, 1990 which
established the Philippine National Police (PNP) under a reorganized Department of the Interior
and Local Government (DILG). The said law still provides for the qualification of the
appointment of a chief of police of a city. It states that No person may be appointed chief of a
city police station unless he holds a bachelor's degree from a recognized institution of learning or
has served in the Philippine Constabulary or in the police department of any city or municipality
with the rank of captain or its equivalent therein for at least three (3) years.
On February 25, 1998, Congress passed into law Republic Act No. 8551 known as the
"Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998 that has amended RA
6975. It has also amended the provision on the qualification of the appointment of a chief of
police of city which provides that No person shall be appointed chief of a city police station
unless he/she is a graduate of Bachelor of Laws or has finished all the required courses of a
master's degree program in public administration, criminology, criminal justice, law
enforcement, national security administration, defense studies, and other related disciplines from
a recognized institution of learning
Even though several years have passed including the laws made by Congress, educational
requirement remained to be as one of the qualifications to be appointed as a chief of police in a
city. In fact at present, the educational requirement has become more stringent. It goes to show
the importance and purpose of the law in requiring that the appointee shall have attained a certain
degree in his education so that professionalism may be maintained in the service.