The police force is different from and independent of the armed forces and the ranks in the military are not similar to those in the Philippine National Police. Thus, directors and chief superintendents of the PNP do not fall under the first category of presidential appointees requiring the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
Facts:
On December 13,
1990, former President Corazon C. Aquino signed into law Republic Act 6975,
creating the Department of Interior and Local Government. The said
Act states that the PNP Chief, Chief Superintendent and Director General shall
be appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
Pursuant thereto, Pres. Aquino, through Executive Secretary Franklin S. Drilon,
promoted 15 police officers to permanent positions in the Philippine
National Police with the rank of Chief Superintendent to Director. The
said police officers took their
oath of office and assumed their respective positions. Thereafter,
the Department of Budget and Management, under the then Secretary Salvador M.
Enriquez III, authorized disbursements for their salaries and other emoluments.
Petitioner filed a
petition for prohibition, as a taxpayer suit, to assail the legality of subject
appointments and disbursements made therefor. He contents that: (1) RA 6975
requires confirmation of the appointments of officers from the rank of
senior superintendent and higher by the CA; (2) The PNP is akin to
the Armed Forces where the Constitution specifically requires confirmation by
the CA, and (3) Respondent Secretary in allowing and/or effecting
disbursements in favor of respondent officers despite the unconstitutionality
and illegality of their appointments is acting without or in excess of his
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
Issues:
1)
Whether or not the appointment PNP officers need CA
confirmation
2)
Whether or not the PNP is akin to the AFP
3) Whether or not Sections 26 and 31 of Republic Act 6975 are constitutional
3) Whether or not Sections 26 and 31 of Republic Act 6975 are constitutional
Held:
1. Under Section 16,
Article VII, of the Constitution, there are four groups of officers of the
government to be appointed by the President:
First, the heads of the
executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, officers
of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other
officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution;
Second, all other
officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by
law;
Third, those whom the
President may be authorized by law to appoint;
Fourth, officers lower
in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone.
It is well-settled 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. Singson, 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
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
2. The Philippine
National Police is separate and distinct from the Armed Forces of the
Philippines.
The Constitution, no less, sets forth the distinction. Under Section 4 of Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution, “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 security of the State.”
The Constitution, no less, sets forth the distinction. Under Section 4 of Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution, “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 security of the State.”
On the other hand,
Section 6 of the same Article of the Constitution ordains that: “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 executives over the police units
in their jurisdiction shall be provided by law.”
The police force is
different from and independent of the armed forces and the ranks in the
military 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 requiring the confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments.
3. Sections 26 and 31 of Republic Act 6975 which
empower the Commission on Appointments to confirm the appointments of public
officials whose appointments are not required by the Constitution to be
confirmed are unconstitutional. The rest of Republic Act 6975 stands. It is
well-settled that when provisions of law declared void are severable from the
main statute and the removal of the unconstitutional provisions would not
affect the validity and enforceability of the other provisions, the statute
remains valid without its voided sections. (Manalo vs. Sistoza, G.R. No. 107369, August 11, 1999)
0
Comments
