[G.R. No. 107369.

August 11, 1999] disbursements for the salaries and other emoluments of subject
police officers.
JESULITO A. MANALO, Petitioner, v. PEDRO G. SISTOZA, REGINO
ARO III, NICASIO MA. CUSTODIO, GUILLERMO DOMONDON, The antecedents facts are as follows:
RAYMUNDO L. LOGAN, WILFREDO R. REOTUTAR, FELINO C.
PACHECO, JR., RUBEN J. CRUZ, GERONIMO B. VALDERRAMA, On December 13, 1990, Republic Act 6975 creating the Department
MERARDO G. ABAYA, EVERLINO B. NARTATEZ, ENRIQUE T. BULAN, of Interior and Local Government was signed into law by former
PEDRO J. NAVARRO, DOMINADOR M. MANGUBAT, RODOLFO M. President Corazon C. Aquino. Pertinent provisions of the said Act
GARCIA and HONORABLE SALVADOR M. ENRIQUEZ II In His Capacity read:
as Secretary of Budget and Management, Respondents.
Sec. 26. Powers, Functions and Term of Office of the PNP Chief. -
DECISION The command and direction of the PNP shall be vested in the Chief
of the PNP who shall have the power to direct and control tactical as
PURISIMA, J.: well as strategic movements, deployment, placement, utilization of
the PNP or any of its units and personal, including its equipment,
The case at bar is not of first impression. The issue posed facilities and other resources. Such command and direction of the
concerning the limits of the power of the Commission on Chief of the PNP may be delegated to subordinate officials with
Appointments to confirm appointments issued by the Chief respect to the units under their respective commands, in
Executive has been put to rest in a number of cases. The court finds accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the
no basis for departing from the ruling laid down in those cases. Commission. The Chief of the PNP shal also have the power to issue
detailed implementing policies and instructions regarding
In this special civil action for Prohibition under Rule 65 of the personnel, funds, properties, records, correspondence and such
Revised Rules of Court, petitioners question the constitutionality other matters as may be necesary to effectively carry out the
and legality of the permanent appointments issued by former functions, powers and duties of the Bureau. The Chief of the PNP
President Corazon C. Aquino to the respondent senior officers of the shall be appointed by the President from among the senior officers
Philippine National Police who were promoted to the ranks of Chief down to the rank of the chief superintendent, subject to
Superintendent and Director without their appointments submitted confirmation by the Commission on Appointments:Provided, That
to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation under Section the Chief of the PNP shall serve a term of office not to exceed four
16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act 6975 (4) years: Provided, further, That in times of war or other national
otherwise known as the Local Government Act of 1990. Impleaded emergency declared by Congress, the President may extend such
in the case is the former Secretary of Budget and Management term of office. 1 (underlining supplied).
Salvador M. Enriquez III, who approved and effected the

1
Sec.31. Appointment of PNP Officers and Members. - The
appointment of the officers and members of the PNP shall be Chief Supt. PEDRO G. SISTOZA - Director
effected in the following manner:
Chief Supt. REGINO ARO III - Director
(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 Chief Supt. NICASIO MA. CUSTODIO - Director
for the national headquarters personnel and attested by the Civil
Service Commission; Chief Supt. GUILLERMO DOMONDON - Director

(b) Inspector to Superintendent - Appointed by the Chief of the PNP, Chief Supt. RAYMUNDO L. LOGAN - Director
as recommended by their immediate superiors, and attested by the
Civil Service Commission; Senior Supt. WILFREDO REOTUTAR - Chief Superintendent

(c) Senior Superintendent to Deputy Director General - Appointed Senior Supt. FELINO C. PACHECO, JR. - Chief Superintendent
by the President upon recommendation of the Chief of the PNP,
with the proper endorsement by the Chairman of the Civil Service Senior Supt. RUBEN J. CRUZ - Chief Superintendent
Commission and subject to confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments; and Senior Supt. GERONIMO B. VALDERRAMA - Chief Superintendent

(d) Director General - Appointed by the President from among the Senior Supt. MERARDO G. ABAYA - Chief Superintendent
senior officers down to the rank of chief superintendent in the
service, subject to confirmation by the Commission on Senior Supt. EVERLINO NARTATEZ - Chief Superintendent
Appointments; Provided, That the Chief of the PNP shall serve a tour
of duty not to exceed four (4) years; Provided, further, That, in Senior Supt. ENRIQUE T. BULAN - Chief Superintendent
times of war or other national emergency declared by Congres, the
President may extend such tour of duty. (underlining supplied). Senior Supt. PEDRO J. NAVARRO - Chief Superintendent

In accordance therewith, on March 10, 1992, the President of the Senior Supt. DOMINADOR MANGUBAT - Chief Superintendent
Philippines, through then Executive Secretary Franklin M. Drilon,
promoted the fifteen (15) respondent police officers herein, by Senior Supt. RODOLFO M. GARCIA - Chief Superintendent
appointing them to positions in the Philippine National Police with
the rank of Chief Superintendent to Director2, namely:

2
The appointments of respondent police officers were in a B. The Philippine National Police is akin to the Armed Forces where
permanent capacity. Their letters of appointment stated in part : the Constitution specifically requires confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments.
By virtue hereof, they may qualify and enter upon the performance
of the duties of the office, furnishing this office and the Civil Service II. Respondent Secretary in allowing and/or effecting disbursements
Commission with copies of their oath of office.3 in favor of respondent officers despite the unconstitutionality and
illegality of their appointments is acting without or in excess of his
Without their names submitted to the Commission on jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
Appointments for confirmation, the said police officers took their
oath of office and assumed their respective positions. Thereafter, The petition must fail. It is not impressed with merit.
the Department of Budget and Management, under the then
Secretary Salvador M. Enriquez III, authorized disbursements for Petitioner theorizes that Republic Act 6975 enjoys the presumption
their salaries and other emoluments. of constitutionality and that every statute passed by Congress is
presumed to have been carefully studied and considered before its
On October 21, 1992, the petitioner brought before this Court this enactment. He maintains that the respect accorded to each
present original petition for prohibition, as a taxpayer suit, to assail department of the government requires that the court should avoid,
the legality of subject appointments and disbursements made as much as possible, deciding constitutional questions.
therefor.
The Court agrees with petitioner. However, it is equally demanded
Petitioner contends that: from the courts, as guardians of the Constitution, to see to it that
every law passed by Congress is not repugnant to the organic law.
I. Respondent officers, in assuming their offices and discharging the Courts have the inherent authority to determine whether a statute
functions attached thereto, despite their invalid appointments, in enacted by the legislature transcends the limit delineated by the
view of the failure to secure the required confirmation of the fundamental law.4 When it does, the courts will not hesitate to
Commission on Appointments as required by the Constitution and strike down such unconstitutional law.
the law, are acting without or in excess of their jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion, considering that : The power to make appointments is vested in the Chief Executive by
Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution, which provides:
A. Republic Act 6975 is a valid law that duly requires confirmation of
the appointments of officers from the rank of senior superintendent Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of
and higher by the Commission on Appointments; the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the
executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and

3
consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or need to establish a middle ground between the 1935 and 1973
naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in Constitutions. The framers of the 1987 Constitution deemed it
him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of imperative to subject certain high positions in the government to
the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided the power of confirmation of the Commission on Appointments and
for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to to allow other positions within the exclusive appointing power of
appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other the President.
officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the
heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards. Conformably, as consistently interpreted and ruled in the leading
case of Sarmiento III vs. Mison7, and in the subsequent cases of
The President shall have the power to make appointments during Bautista vs. Salonga8, Quintos-Deles vs. Constitutional
the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but Commission9, and Calderon vs. Carale10; under Section 16, Article
such appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the VII, of the Constitution, there are four groups of officers of the
Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the government to be appointed by the President:
Congress.
First, the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other
The aforecited provision of the Constitution has been the subject of public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from the
several cases on the issue of the restrictive function of the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose
Commission on Appointments with respect to the appointing power appointments are vested in him in this Constitution;
of the President. This court touched upon the historical antecedent
of the said provision in the case of Sarmiento III vs. Mison5 in which Second, all other officers of the Government whose appointments
it was ratiocinated upon that Section 16 of Article VII of the 1987 are not otherwise provided for by law;
Constitution requiring confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments of certain appointments issued by the President Third, those whom the President may be authorized by law to
contemplates a system of checks and balances between the appoint;
executive and legislative branches of government. Experience
showed that when almost all presidential appointments required Fourth, officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress
the consent of the Commission on Appointments, as was the case may by law vest in the President alone.
under the 1935 Constitution, the commission became a venue of
horse-trading and similar malpractices.6 On the other hand, placing It is well-settled that only presidential appointments belonging to
absolute power to make appointments in the President with hardly the first group require the confirmation by the Commission on
any check by the legislature, as what happened under 1973 Appointments. The appointments of respondent officers who are
Constitution, leads to abuse of such power. Thus was perceived the not within the first category, need not be confirmed by the

4
Commission on Appointments. As held in the case of Tarrosa vs. may be provided by law. It shall keep a regular force necessary for
Singson11, Congress cannot by law expand the power of the security of the State.
confirmation of the Commission on Appointments and require
confirmation of appointments of other government officials not On the other hand, Section 6 of the same Article of the Constitution
mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16 of Article VII of the ordains that:
1987 Constitution.
The State shall establish and maintain one police force, which shall
Consequently, unconstitutional are Sections 26 and 31 of Republic be national in scope and civilian in character to be administered and
Act 6975 which empower the Commission on Appointments to controlled by a national police commission. The authority of local
confirm the appointments of public officials whose appointments executives over the police units in their jurisdiction shall be
are not required by the Constitution to be confirmed. But the provided by law.
unconstitutionality of the aforesaid sections notwithstanding, the
rest of Republic Act 6975 stands. It is well-settled that when To so distinguish the police force from the armed forces, Congress
provisions of law declared void are severable from the main statute enacted Republic Act 6975 which states in part:
and the removal of the unconstitutional provisions would not affect
the validity and enforceability of the other provisions, the statute Section 2. Declaration of policy - It is hereby declared to be the
remains valid without its voided sections.12cräläwvirtualibräry policy of the State to promote peace and order, ensure public safety
and further strengthen local government capability aimed towards
It is petitioners submission that the Philippine National Police is akin the effective delivery of the basic services to the citizenry through
to the Armed Forces of the Philippines and therefore, the the establishment of a highly efficient and competent police force
appointments of police officers whose rank is equal to that of that is national in scope and civilian in character. xxx
colonel or naval captain require confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments. The policy force shall be organized, trained and equipped primarily
for the performance of police functions. Its national scope and
This contention is equally untenable. The Philippine National Police civilian character shall be paramount. No element of the police
is separate and distinct from the Armed Forces of the Philippines. force shall be military nor shall any position thereof be occupied by
The Constitution, no less, sets forth the distinction. Under Section 4 active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
of Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution,
Thereunder, the police force is different from and independent of
The Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be composed of a citizen the armed forces and the ranks in the military are not similar to
armed force which shall undergo military training and service, as those in the Philippine National Police. Thus, directors and chief
superintendents of the PNP, such as the herein respondent police

5
officers, do not fall under the first category of presidential
appointees requiring the confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments.

In view of the foregoing disquisition and conclusion, the respondent

WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition under consideration is

SO ORDERED.

Davide, C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,