8/15/2015 G.R.No.

107369

TodayisSaturday,August15,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.107369August11,1999

JESULITOA.MANALO,petitioner,
vs.
PEDROG.SISTOZA,REGINOAROIII,NICASIOMA.CUSTODIO,GUILLERMODOMONDON,RAYMUNDOL.
LOGAN, WILFREDO R. REOTUTAR, FELINO C. PACHECO, JR., RUBEN J. CRUZ, GERONIMO B.
VALDERRAMA,MERARDOG.ABAYA,EVERLINOB.NARTATEZ,ENRIQUET.BULAN,PEDROJ.NAVARRO,
DOMINADORM.MANGUBAT,RODOLFOM.GARCIAandHONORABLESALVADORM.ENRIQUEZIIInHis
CapacityasSecretaryofBudgetandManagement,respondents.

PURISIMA,J.:

Thecaseatbarisnotoffirstimpression.TheissueposedconcerningthelimitsofthepoweroftheCommission
on Appointments to confirm appointments issued by the Chief Executive has been put to rest in a number of
cases.Thecourtfindsnobasisfordepartingfromtherulinglaiddowninthosecases.

In this special civil action for Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, petitioners question the
constitutionalityandlegalityofthepermanentappointmentsissuedbyformerPresidentCorazonC.Aquinotothe
respondent senior officers of the Philippine National Police who were promoted to the ranks of Chief
Superintendent and Director without their appointments submitted to the Commission on Appointments for
confirmationunderSection16,ArticleVIIofthe1987ConstitutionandRepublicAct6975otherwiseknownasthe
Local Government Act of 1990. Impleaded in the case is the former Secretary of Budget and Management
SalvadorM.EnriquezIII,whoapprovedandeffectedthedisbursementsforthesalariesandotheremolumentsof
subjectpoliceofficers. 1 w p h i1 .n t

Theantecedentsfactsareasfollows:

OnDecember13,1990,RepublicAct6975creatingtheDepartmentofInteriorandLocalGovernmentwassigned
intolawbyformerPresidentCorazonC.Aquino.PertinentprovisionsofthesaidActread:

Sec. 26. Powers, Functions and Term of Office of the PNP Chief. The command and direction of the
PNPshallbevestedintheChiefofthePNPwhoshallhavethepowertodirectandcontroltacticalaswell
as strategic movements, deployment, placement, utilization of the PNP or any of its units and personal,
includingitsequipment,facilitiesandotherresources.SuchcommandanddirectionoftheChiefofthePNP
may be delegated to subordinate officials with respect to the units under their respective commands, in
accordancewiththerulesandregulationsprescribedbytheCommission.TheChiefofthePNPshallalso
have the power to issue detailed implementing policies and instructions regarding personnel, funds,
properties,records,correspondenceandsuchothermattersasmaybenecessarytoeffectivelycarryout
thefunctions,powersanddutiesoftheBureau.TheChiefofthePNPshallbeappointedbythePresident
fromamongtheseniorofficersdowntotherankofthechiefsuperintendent,subjecttoconfirmationbythe
Commission on Appointments: Provided, That the Chief of the PNP shall serve a term of office not to
exceed four (4) years: Provided, further, That in times of war or other national emergency declared by
Congress,thePresidentmayextendsuchtermofoffice."1(emphasissupplied).

Sec.31.AppointmentofPNPOfficersandMembers.Theappointmentoftheofficersandmembersof
thePNPshallbeeffectedinthefollowingmanner:

(a) Police Officer I to Senior Police Officer IV Appointed by the PNP regional director for regional
personnel or by the Chief of the PNP for the national headquarters personnel and attested by the Civil
ServiceCommission

(b)InspectortoSuperintendentAppointedbytheChiefofthePNP,asrecommendedbytheirimmediate
superiors,andattestedbytheCivilServiceCommission
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/aug1999/gr_107369_1999.html 1/5
8/15/2015 G.R.No.107369
(c)SeniorSuperintendenttoDeputyDirectorGeneralAppointedbythePresidentuponrecommendation
oftheChiefofthePNP,withtheproperendorsementbytheChairmanoftheCivilServiceCommissionand
subjecttoconfirmationbytheCommissiononAppointmentsand

(d)DirectorGeneralAppointedbythePresidentfromamongtheseniorofficersdowntotherankofchief
superintendentintheservice,subjecttoconfirmationbytheCommissiononAppointmentsProvided,That
theChiefofthePNPshallserveatourofdutynottoexceedfour(4)yearsProvided,further,That,intimes
of war or other national emergency declared by Congress, the President may extend such tour of duty.
(emphasissupplied).

Inaccordancetherewith,onMarch10,1992,thePresidentofthePhilippines,throughthenExecutiveSecretary
FranklinM.Drilon,promotedthefifteen(15)respondentpoliceofficersherein,byappointingthemtopositionsin
thePhilippineNationalPolicewiththerankofChiefSuperintendentto
Director2,namely:

ChiefSupt.PEDROG.SISTOZA Director
ChiefSupt.REGINOAROIII Director

ChiefSupt.NICASIOMA.CUSTODIO Director
ChiefSupt.GUILLERMODOMONDON Director
ChiefSupt.RAYMUNDOL.LOGAN Director

SeniorSupt.WILFREDOREOTUTAR ChiefSuperintendent
SeniorSupt.FELINOC.PACHECO,JR. ChiefSuperintendent

SeniorSupt.RUBENJ.CRUZ ChiefSuperintendent
SeniorSupt.GERONIMOB.VALDERRAMA ChiefSuperintendent

SeniorSupt.MERARDOG.ABAYA ChiefSuperintendent

SeniorSupt.EVERLINONARTATEZ ChiefSuperintendent
SeniorSupt.ENRIQUET.BULAN ChiefSuperintendent

SeniorSupt.PEDROJ.NAVARRO ChiefSuperintendent

SeniorSupt.DOMINADORMANGUBAT ChiefSuperintendent
SeniorSupt.RODOLFOM.GARCIA ChiefSuperintendent

Theappointmentsofrespondentpoliceofficerswereinapermanentcapacity.Theirlettersofappointmentstated
inpart:

Byvirtuehereof,theymayqualifyandenterupontheperformanceofthedutiesoftheoffice,furnishingthis
officeandtheCivilServiceCommissionwithcopiesoftheiroathofoffice.3

WithouttheirnamessubmittedtotheCommissiononAppointmentsforconfirmation,thesaidpoliceofficerstook
their oath of office and assumed their respective positions. Thereafter, the Department of Budget and
Management,underthethenSecretarySalvadorM.EnriquezIII,authorizeddisbursementsfortheirsalariesand
otheremoluments.

On October 21, 1992, the petitioner brought before this Court this present original petition for prohibition, as a
taxpayersuit,toassailthelegalityofsubjectappointmentsanddisbursementsmadetherefor.

Petitionercontendsthat:

I. Respondent officers, in assuming their offices and discharging the functions attached thereto, despite
theirinvalidappointments,inviewofthefailuretosecuretherequiredconfirmationoftheCommissionon
Appointments as required by the Constitution and the law, are acting without or in excess of their
jurisdictionorwithgraveabuseofdiscretion,consideringthat:

A. Republic Act 6975 is a valid law that duly requires confirmation of the appointments of officers
fromtherankofseniorsuperintendentandhigherbytheCommissiononAppointments.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/aug1999/gr_107369_1999.html 2/5
8/15/2015 G.R.No.107369
B. The Philippine National Police is akin to the Armed Forces where the Constitution specifically
requiresconfirmationbytheCommissiononAppointments.

II.RespondentSecretaryinallowingand/oreffectingdisbursementsinfavorofrespondentofficersdespite
theunconstitutionalityandillegalityoftheirappointmentsisactingwithoutorinexcessofhisjurisdictionor
withgraveabuseofdiscretion.

Thepetitionmustfail.Itisnotimpressedwithmerit.

Petitioner theorizes that Republic Act 6975 enjoys the presumption of constitutionality and that every statute
passed by Congress is presumed to have been carefully studied and considered before its enactment. He
maintainsthattherespectaccordedtoeachdepartmentofthegovernmentrequiresthatthecourtshouldavoid,
asmuchaspossible,decidingconstitutionalquestions.

The Court agrees with petitioner. However, it is equally demanded from the courts, as guardians of the
Constitution,toseetoitthateverylawpassedbyCongressisnotrepugnanttotheorganiclaw.Courtshavethe
inherentauthoritytodeterminewhetherastatuteenactedbythelegislaturetranscendsthelimitdelineatedbythe
fundamentallaw.4Whenitdoes,thecourtswillnothesitatetostrikedownsuchunconstitutionallaw.

The power to make appointments is vested in the Chief Executive by Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution,
whichprovides:

Sec.16.ThePresidentshallnominateand,withtheconsentoftheCommissiononAppointments,appoint
theheadsoftheexecutivedepartments,ambassadors,otherpublicministersandconsuls,orofficersofthe
armedforcesfromtherankofcolonelornavalcaptain,andotherofficerswhoseappointmentsarevested
inhiminthisConstitution.HeshallalsoappointallotherofficersoftheGovernmentwhoseappointments
are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The
Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the
courts,orintheheadsofdepartments,agencies,commissions,orboards.

The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether
voluntaryorcompulsory,butsuchappointmentsshallbeeffectiveonlyuntildisapprovalbytheCommission
onAppointmentsoruntilthenextadjournmentoftheCongress.

TheaforecitedprovisionoftheConstitutionhasbeenthesubjectofseveralcasesontheissueoftherestrictive
function of the Commission on Appointments with respect to the appointing power of the President. This court
toucheduponthehistoricalantecedentofthesaidprovisioninthecaseofSarmientoIIIvs.Mison5inwhichitwas
ratiocinateduponthatSection16ofArticleVIIofthe1987ConstitutionrequiringconfirmationbytheCommission
onAppointmentsofcertainappointmentsissuedbythePresidentcontemplatesasystemofchecksandbalances
between the executive and legislative branches of government. Experience showed that when almost all
presidentialappointmentsrequiredtheconsentoftheCommissiononAppointments,aswasthecaseunderthe
1935 Constitution, the commission became a venue of "horsetrading" and similar malpractices.6 On the other
hand,placingabsolutepowertomakeappointmentsinthePresidentwithhardlyanycheckbythelegislature,as
whathappenedunder1973Constitution,leadstoabuseofsuchpower.Thuswasperceivedtheneedtoestablish
a "middle ground" between the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. The framers of the 1987 Constitution deemed it
imperativetosubjectcertainhighpositionsinthegovernmenttothepowerofconfirmationoftheCommissionon
AppointmentsandtoallowotherpositionswithintheexclusiveappointingpowerofthePresident. 1 w p h i1 .n t

Conformably, as consistently interpreted and ruled in the leading case of Sarmiento III vs. Mison 7, and in the
subsequent cases of Bautista vs. Salonga 8, QuintosDeles vs. Constitutional Commission9, and Calderon vs.
Carale10underSection16,ArticleVII,oftheConstitution,therearefourgroupsofofficersofthegovernmentto
beappointedbythePresident:

First,theheadsoftheexecutivedepartments,ambassadors,otherpublicministersandconsuls,officersof
the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are
vestedinhiminthisConstitution

Second,allotherofficersoftheGovernmentwhoseappointmentsarenototherwiseprovidedforbylaw

Third,thosewhomthePresidentmaybeauthorizedbylawtoappoint

Fourth,officerslowerinrankwhoseappointmentstheCongressmaybylawvestinthePresidentalone.

It is wellsettled that only presidential appointments belonging to the first group require the confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments. The appointments of respondent officers who are not within the first category,
need not be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. As held in the case of Tarrosa vs. Singson11

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/aug1999/gr_107369_1999.html 3/5
8/15/2015 G.R.No.107369
Congress cannot by law expand the power of confirmation of the Commission on Appointments and require
confirmation of appointments of other government officials not mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16 of
ArticleVIIofthe1987Constitution.

Consequently,unconstitutionalareSections26and31ofRepublicAct6975whichempowertheCommissionon
Appointments to confirm the appointments of public officials whose appointments are not required by the
Constitution to be confirmed. But the unconstitutionality of the aforesaid sections notwithstanding, the rest of
RepublicAct6975stands.Itiswellsettledthatwhenprovisionsoflawdeclaredvoidareseverablefromthemain
statute and the removal of the unconstitutional provisions would not affect the validity and enforceability of the
otherprovisions,thestatuteremainsvalidwithoutitsvoidedsections.12

Itispetitioner'ssubmissionthatthePhilippineNationalPoliceisakintotheArmedForcesofthePhilippinesand
therefore, the appointments of police officers whose rank is equal to that of colonel or naval captain require
confirmationbytheCommissiononAppointments.

This contention is equally untenable. The Philippine National Police is separate and distinct from the Armed
ForcesofthePhilippines.TheConstitution,noless,setsforththedistinction.UnderSection4ofArticleXVIofthe
1987Constitution,

The Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be composed of a citizen armed force which shall undergo
military training and service, as may be provided by law. It shall keep a regular force necessary for the
securityoftheState.

Ontheotherhand,Section6ofthesameArticleoftheConstitutionordainsthat:

The State shall establish and maintain one police force, which shall be national in scope and civilian in
character to be administered and controlled by a national police commission. The authority of local
executivesoverthepoliceunitsintheirjurisdictionshallbeprovidedbylaw.

To so distinguish the police force from the armed forces, Congress enacted Republic Act 6975 which states in
part:

Sec.2.Declarationofpolicy. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State to promote peace and
order,ensurepublicsafetyandfurtherstrengthenlocalgovernmentcapabilityaimedtowardstheeffective
deliveryofthebasicservicestothecitizenrythroughtheestablishmentofahighlyefficientandcompetent
policeforcethatisnationalinscopeandcivilianincharacter....

Thepolicyforceshallbeorganized,trainedandequippedprimarilyfortheperformanceofpolicefunctions.
Itsnationalscopeandciviliancharactershallbeparamount.Noelementofthepoliceforceshallbemilitary
norshallanypositionthereofbeoccupiedbyactivemembersoftheArmedForcesofthePhilippines.

Thereunder,thepoliceforceisdifferentfromandindependentofthearmedforcesandtheranksinthemilitary
are not similar to those in the Philippine National Police. Thus, directors and chief superintendents of the PNP,
such as the herein respondent police officers, do not fall under the first category of presidential appointees
requiringtheconfirmationbytheCommissiononAppointments.

Inviewoftheforegoingdisquisitionandconclusion,therespondentformerSecretarySalvadorM.EnriquezIIIof
the Department of Budget and Management, did not act with grave abuse of discretion in authorizing and
effecting disbursements for the salaries and other emoluments of the respondent police officers whose
appointmentsarevalid.

WHEREFORE,forlackofmerit,thepetitionunderconsiderationisherebyDISMISSED.Nopronouncementasto
costs. 1 w p h i1 .n t

SOORDERED.

Davide,Jr.,C.J.,Bellosillo,Melo,Puno,Vitug,Kapunan,Mendoza,Panganiban,Quisumbing,Pardo,Buena,
GonzagaReyesandYnaresSantiago,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

1RepublicAct6975,otherwiseknownastheDepartmentofInteriorandLocalGovernmentActof1990.

2Rollo,p.15.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/aug1999/gr_107369_1999.html 4/5
8/15/2015 G.R.No.107369

3Ibid.

4Tatadvs.SecretaryoftheDepartmentofEnergy,282SCRA337.

5156SCRA549.

6Ibid.,p.556.

7Ibid.

8172SCRA160.

9177SCRA259.

10208SCRA254.

11232SCRA553

12Tatadvs.SecretaryoftheDepartmentofEnergy,282SCRA337.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/aug1999/gr_107369_1999.html 5/5