Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-29658

November 29, 1968

ENRIQUE V. MORALES, petitioner,

vs.
ABELARDO SUBIDO, as Commissioner of Civil
Service, respondent.
Vicente Rodriguez, for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Araneta, for appellee.
CASTRO, J.:
The question for resolution in this case is whether a person who
has served as captain in the police department of a city for at least
three years but does not possess a bachelor's degree, is qualified
for appointment as chief of police. The question calls for an interpr
etation of the following provisions of section 10 of the Police Act of
1966 (Republic Act 4864):
Minimum qualification for appointment as Chief of Police
Agency. 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 either in
the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the National Bureau
of Investigation, 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 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.
The petitioner Enrique V. Morales is the chief of the detective
bureau of the Manila Police Department and holds the rank of

lieutenant colonel. He began his career in 1934 as patrolman and

gradually rose to his present position. Upon the resignation of Brig.
Gen. Ricardo G. Papa on March 14, 1968, the petitioner was
designated acting chief of police of Manila and, at the same time,
given a provisional appointment to the same position by the mayor
of Manila.
On September 24, 1968 the respondent Commissioner of Civil
Service Abelardo Subido approved the designation of the petitioner
but rejected his appointment for "failure to meet the minimum
educational and civil service eligibility requirements for the said
position." Instead, the respondent certified other persons as
qualified for the post and called the attention of the mayor to
section 4 of the Decentralization Act of 1967 which requires the
filling of a vacancy within 30 days after its coming into existence.
Earlier, on September 5, he announced in the metropolitan
newspapers that the position of chief of police of Manila was
vacant and listed the qualifications which applicants should
possess.
The petitioner's reaction to the announcement was a demand that
the respondent include him in a list of eligible and qualified
applicants from which the mayor might appoint one as chief of
police of the city. He contended that his service alone as captain
for more than three years in the Manila Police Department qualified
him for appointment. The demand was contained in a letter which
he wrote to the respondent on October 8, 1968. The mayor
endorsed the letter favorably, but the respondent refused to
reconsider his stand. Hence this petition for mandamus to compel
the respondent to include the petitioner in a list of "five next
ranking eligible and qualified persons."
The petitioner's reading of section 10 of the Police Act of 1966 is,
per his own phrasing, as follows:
NO PERSON may be appointed chief of a city police agency
unless HE
(1) 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

(2) has served as chief of police with exemplary record, OR

(3) has served in the police department of any city with the
rank of captain or its equivalent therein for at least three
years; OR
(4) 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.
As he has served successively as captain, major and lieutenant
colonel in the MPD since 1954, the petitioner's insistence is that he
falls under the third class of persons qualified for appointment as
chief of a city police department.
In support of this proposition, he adverts to the policy of the Act "to
place the local police service on a professional level," 1 and
contends that a bachelor's degree does not guarantee that one
who possesses it will make a good policeman, but that, on the
other hand, one who, like the petitioner, has risen from patrolman
to lieutenant colonel "meets the test of professionalism."
Even if we concede the correctness of the petitioner's view still we
do not see how the requirement of a college degree as additional
qualification can run counter to the avowed policy of the Act. On
the contrary, we should think that the requirement of such
additional qualification will best carry out that policy. The fallacy of
petitioner's argument lies in its assumption that the choice is
between one who has served long and loyally in a city police
agency and another who, not having so served, has only a
bachelor's degree. But that is not the issue in this case. The issue
rather is whether, within the meaning and intendment of the law,
in addition to service qualification, one should have educational
qualification as shown by the possession of a bachelor's degree.
The petitioner invokes the last paragraph of section 9 of the Act
which provides:
Persons who at the time of the approval of this Act have
rendered at least five years of satisfactory service in a
provincial, city or municipal police agency although they
have not qualified in an appropriate civil service

examination are considered as civil service eligibles for the

purpose of this Act.
In effect, he contends that if a person who has rendered at least
five years of satisfactory service in a police agency is considered a
civil service eligible, so must a person be considered qualified even
though he does not possess a bachelor's degree.
The petitioner's argument is fallacious in two respects. First, it fails
to distinguish between eligibility and qualification. For the statute
may allow the compensation of service for a person's lack of
eligibility but not necessarily for his lack of educational
qualification. Second, section 9 governs the appointment
of members of apolice agency only. On the other hand, the
appointment of chiefs of police is the precise gravamen of section
10, the last paragraph of which states:
Where no civil service eligible is available, provisional
appointment may be made in accordance with Civil Service
Law and rules: Provided, that the appointee possesses the
above educational qualification: Provided, further, That in
no case shall such appointment extend beyond six months,
except for a valid cause, and with the approval of the Civil
Service Commission.
Thus, while the Act gives credit for service and allows it to
compensate for the lack of civil service eligibility in the case of
a member of a police agency, it gives no such credit for lack of civil
service eligibility in the case of a chief of police. On the contrary,
by providing that a person, who is not a civil service eligible, may
be provisionally appointed2 chief of police "[ p]rovided, [t]hat the
appointee possesses the above educational qualification," the Act
makes it unequivocal that the possession of a college degree or a
high school diploma (in addition to service) is an indispensable
requisite.
It is next contended that to read section 10 as requiring a
bachelor's degree, in addition to service either in the Armed Forces
of the Philippines or in the National Bureau of Investigation or as
chief of police with an exemplary record or as a captain in a city
police department for at least three years, would be to create an
"absurd situation" in which a person who has served for only one

month in the AFP or the NBI is in law considered the equal of

another who has been a chief of police or has been a captain in a
city police agency for at least three years. From this it is concluded
that "the only logical equivalence of these two groups (Chief of
Police with exemplary record and Police Captain for at least 3 years
in a City Police Agency) is the bachelor's degree."
Section 10, it must be admitted, does not specify in what capacity
service in the AFP or in the NBI must have been rendered, but an
admission of the existence of the ambiguity in the statute does not
necessarily compel acquiescence in the conclusion that it is only in
cases where the appointee's service has been in the AFP or in the
NBI that he must be required to have a bachelor's degree. The
logical implication of the petitioner's argument that a person who
has served as captain in a city police department for at least three
years need not have a bachelor's degree to qualify, is that such
person need not even be a high school graduate. If such be the
case would there still be need for a person to be at least a high
school graduate provided he has had at least eight years of service
as captain in the AFP?
The truth is that, except for the ambiguity referred to (the meaning
of which is not in issue in this case), section 10 of the Act needs no
interpretation because its meaning is clear. That the purpose is to
require both educational and service qualifications of those seeking
appointment as chief of police is evidence from a reading of the
original provision of House Bill 6951 and the successive revision it
underwent. Thus, section 12 of House Bill 6951 (now section 10 of
the Police Act of 1966) read:
Minimum Qualification for Appointment as Chief of a Police
Agency. No chief of a police agency of a province or
chartered city shall be appointed unless he is a member of
the Philippine Bar, or a holder of a bachelor's degree in
police administration. Any holder of a bachelor's degree
who served either in the Philippine Constabulary or the
police department of any city from the rank of captain or
inspector, second class, or its equivalent for at least three
years shall be eligible for appointment to the position of
chief of the police agency.
No chief of a municipal police force shall be appointed
unless he is a holder of a four-year college degree course

or a holder of a Bachelor's degree in Police Administration

or Criminology.
Where no civil service eligible is available provisional
appointment may be made in accordance with Civil Service
Law and rules, provided the appointee possesses the
above educational qualification but in no case shall such
appointment exceed beyond six months.
It was precisely because the bill was clearly understood as
requiring both educational and service qualifications that the
following exchanges of view were made on the floor of the house of
Representatives:
MR. VELOSO (F.). Section 12, Minimum Qualification for
Appointment of Chief of a Police Agency, provides that the
chief of a police agency of a province or a chartered city
should be at least a member of the Philippine Bar or a
holder of a bachelor's degree in Police Administration; and
the chief of police of a municipality should be at least a
holder of a four years' college degree or holder of a
bachelor's degree in Police Administration or Criminology.
At first blush, there is no reason why I should object to
these minimum requirements; but I find such requirement
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.
MR. AMANTE. 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 that if he brings it up during the period of
amendments, I will consider it.
MR. VELOSO (F.). I am glad that the Committee will accept
my amendment. My only regret, however, is that because I
made a number of proposed amendments, I will not be
ready to submit them immediately. We should just limit
ourselves to the sponsorship this evening.3
Thus it appears that it was because of the educational requirement
contained in the bill that objections were expressed, but while it
was agreed to delete this requirement during the period of
amendment, no motion was ever presented to effect the change. 4
In the Senate, the Committee on Government Reorganization, to
which House Bill 6951 was referred, reported a substitute
measure.5 It is to this substitute bill that section 10 of the Act owes
its present form and substance.
Parenthetically, the substitute measure gives light on the meaning
of the ambiguous phrase "and who has served either in the Armed
Forces of the Philippines or the National Bureau of Investigation."
The provision of the substitute bill 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 for at least 8
years with the rank of captain and/or higher.
Thus, service in the AFP or the NBI was intended to be in the
capacity of captain for at least three years.

At the behest of Senator Francisco Rodrigo, the phrase "has served

as officer in the Armed Forces" was inserted so as to make the
provision read:
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. 6
It is to be noted that the Rodrigo amendment was in the nature of
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,"
under which the petitioner herein, who is at least a high school
graduate (both parties agree that the petitioner finished the
second year of the law course) could possibly qualify. However,
somewhere in the legislative process the phrase was dropped and
only the Rodrigo amendment was retained.
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. The text of the Act bears on page 15 thereof the
signatures of President of the Senate Arturo M. Tolentino and
Speaker of the House of Representatives Cornelio T. Villareal, and
on page 16 thereof those of Eliseo M. Tenza, Secretary of the
Senate, and Inocencio B. Pareja, Secretary of the House of
Representatives, and of President Ferdinand E. Marcos. Under the
enrolled bill theory, announced in Mabanag v. Lopez Vito8 this text
of the Act must be deemed as importing absolute verity and as
binding on the courts. As the Supreme Court of the United States
said in Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark:9
The signing by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and, by the President of the Senate, in
open session, of an enrolled bill, is an official attestation by
the two houses of such bill as one that has passed

Congress. It is a declaration by the two houses, through

their presiding officers, to the President that a bill, thus
attested, has received in the form, the sanction of the
legislative branch of the government, and that it is
delivered to him in obedience to the constitutional
requirement that all bill which pass Congress shall be
presented to him. And when a bill, thus attested, receives
his approval, its authentication as a bill that has passed
Congress should be deemed complete and unimpeachable.
As the President has no authority to approve a bill not
passed by Congress, an enrolled Act in the custody of the
Secretary of State, and having the official attestations of
the Speaker of the house of Representatives, of the
President of the Senate, and of the President of the United
States, carries, on its face, a solemn assurance by the
legislative and executive departments of the government,
charged, respectively, with the duty of enacting and
executing the laws, that it was passed by Congress. The
respect due to co-equal and independent department
requires the judicial department to act upon that
assurance, and to accept, as having passed Congress, all
bills authenticated in the manner stated; leaving the courts
to determine, when the question properly arises, whether
the Act, so authenticated, is in conformity with the
Constitution.10

completed two years in Law School, and served as Chief of the

Detective Bureau for 14 years, holding the successive ranks of
Captain, Major and Lt. Colonel? Not to mention the fact that he was
awarded three Presidential Awards, and was given the
Congressional Commendation the highest award ever conferred
in the history of the Manila Police Department."

To proceed with the history of the statute, it appears that, when the
two chambers of the legislature met in conference committee, the
phrase "has served as chief of police with exemplary record" was
added, thereby accounting for its presence in section 10 of the
Act.11

In conclusion, we hold that, under the present state of the law, the
petitioner is neither qualified nor eligible for appointment as chief
of police of the city of Manila. Consequently, the respondent has no
corresponding legal duty and therefore may not be compelled
by mandamus to certify the petitioner as qualified and eligible.

What, then, is the significance of this? 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.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition for mandamus is denied. No

pronouncements as to costs.

Still it is insisted that "if a high school graduate who has served as
captain in the Armed Forces of the Philippines for eight years
irrespective of the branch of service where he served can be Chief
of Police of Manila, why not one who holds an A.A. degree,

The trouble with such argument is that even if we were to concede

its soundness, still we would be hard put reading it in the law
because it is not there. The inclusion of desirable enlargements in
the statute is addressed to the judgment of Congress and unless
such enlargements are by it accepted courts are without power to
make them. As Mr. Justice Frankfurter put the matter with lucidity:
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.12

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Sanchez, Fernando and

Capistrano, JJ., concur.
Dizon, J., concurs in the result.
Zaldivar, J., took no part.

Separate Opinions
DIZON, J., concurring:
As stated in the decision penned by Mr. Justice Fred Ruiz Castro,
petitioner Enrique V. Morales began his career in the Manila Police
Department in 1934 as patrolman and gradually rose to his present
position that of Chief of the Detective Bureau thereof and
holds the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.
In my opinion, a man bearing such credentials can be reasonably
expected to be a good Chief of the Manila Police Department. But
the issue before us is not whether or not his training and
experience justify that expectation, but whether or not, under and
in accordance with the pertinent law, he is qualified for
appointment to such office to the extent that he is entitled to the
relief sought, namely, the issuance of a writ of mandamus
compelling the respondent Commissioner of Civil Service to include
him in a list of eligible and qualified applicants from which the
mayor of the City of Manila might choose the appointee who will fill
the vacant position of Chief of Police of the City of Manila.
Section 10 of Police Act of 1966 (Republic Act 4864) which
controls the issue before us, reads as follows:
Minimum qualification for appointment as Chief of Police
Agency. 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 either in
the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the National Bureau
of Investigation, 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 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.
The above legal provision may be construed as providing for two
different kinds of academic qualification, namely, (1) a bachelor's
degree from a recognized institution of learning, and (2) a high
school degree, each of which is coupled with separate and distinct
service qualifications. Any one of the latter, joined with either of

the aforesaid academic requirements, would qualify a person for

appointment as Chief of a city police agency. In other words, an
applicant who is a holder of 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 would make
the grade, in the same manner as would another applicant with a
similar bachelor's degree who has served as chief of police with
exemplary record, etc.
In the case of an applicant who is a mere high school graduate, the
service qualification is not only different but is higher and more
exacting for obvious reasons.
Petitioner, however, would construe and read the law as follows:
NO PERSON may be appointed chief of a city police agency
unless HE
(1) 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
(2) has served as chief of police with exemplary
record, OR
(3) has served in the police department of any city
with the rank of captain or its equivalent therein for
at least three years; OR
(4) 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.
While, in my view, petitioner's interpretation is not unreasonable, it
falls short of showing that it is the true and correct meaning and
intent of the law aforesaid. This, in my opinion, must lead to the
conclusion that petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of a writ of
mandamus for the purpose stated in his petition because to be
entitled thereto he must show that, in relation to the matter at
issue, he has a clear enforceable right, on the one hand, and that

the respondent has an imperative legal duty to perform, on the

other. Because of this I am constrained to concur in the result.