11/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

VOL. 312, AUGUST 11, 1999 239

Manalo vs. Sistoza

*
G.R. No. 107369. August 11, 1999.

JESULITO A. MANALO, petitioner, vs. PEDRO G.

SISTOZA, REGINO ARO III, NICASIO MA. CUSTODIO,
GUILLERMO DOMONDON, RAYMUNDO L. LOGAN,
WILFREDO R. REOTUTAR, FELINO C. PACHECO, JR.,
RUBEN J. CRUZ, GERONIMO B. VALDERRAMA,
MERARDO G. ABAYA, EVERLINO B. NARTATEZ,
ENRIQUE T. BULAN, PEDRO J. NAVARRO,
DOMINADOR M. MANGUBAT, RODOLFO M. GARCIA
and HONORABLE SALVADOR M. ENRIQUEZ II In His
Capacity as Secretary of Budget and Management,
respondents.

Constitutional Law; Judicial Review; Separation of Powers;

Statutory Construction; Courts have the inherent authority to
determine whether a statute enacted by the legislature transcends
the limit

________________

* EN BANC.

240

240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manalo vs. Sistoza

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e373a8f6ba6a092c0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14
11/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

delineated by the fundamental law, and when it does, they will

not hesitate to strike down such unconstitutional law.–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 maintains that the respect accorded to each
department of the government requires that the court should
avoid, as much as possible, deciding constitutional questions. The
Court agrees with petitioner. However, it is equally demanded
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. Courts have the inherent authority to determine whether a
statute enacted by the legislature transcends the limit delineated
by the fundamental law. When it does, the courts will not
hesitate to strike down such unconstitutional law.
Same; Same; Same; Appointments; Commission on
Appointments; 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.–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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Statutes; Republic Act
6975; 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.–
Unconstitutional are 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. But the
unconstitutionality of the aforesaid sections notwithstanding, the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e373a8f6ba6a092c0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/14
11/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

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

241

VOL. 312, AUGUST 11, 1999 241

Manalo vs. Sistoza

the validity and enforceability of the other provisions, the statute

remains valid without its voided sections.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Philippine National Police;
The Philippine National Police is separate and distinct from the
Armed Forces of the Philippines.–It is petitioner’s submission
that the Philippine National Police is akin to the Armed Forces of
the Philippines and therefore, the appointments of police officers
whose rank is equal to that of colonel or naval captain require
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. This
contention is equally untenable. The Philippine National Police is
separate and distinct from the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
The Constitution, no less, sets forth the distinction.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; 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.–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.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Prohibition.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

          Manalo, Puno, Gozos, Jocson and Placido Law
Offices for petitioner.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e373a8f6ba6a092c0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/14
11/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

          Valdez, Domondon & Associates for respondent

Guillermo Domondon.

PURISIMA, J.:

The case at bar is not of first impression. The issue posed

concerning the limits of the power of the Commission on
Appointments to confirm appointments issued by the Chief
Executive has been put to rest in a number of cases. The
court
242

242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manalo vs. Sistoza

finds no basis for departing from the ruling laid down in

those cases. In this special civil action for Prohibition
under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, petitioner
question the constitutionality and legality of the
permanent appointments issued by former President
Corazon C. Aquino to the 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 confirmation under Section 16, Article
VII of the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act 6975
otherwise known as the Local Government Act of 1990.
Impleaded in the case is the former Secretary of Budget
and Management Salvador M. Enriquez III, who approved
and effected the disbursements for the salaries and other
emoluments of subject police officers.
The antecedents facts are as follows:
On December 13, 1990, Republic Act 6975 creating the
Department of Interior and Local Government was signed
into law by former President Corazon C. Aquino. Pertinent
provisions of the said Act read:

Sec. 26. Powers, Functions and Term of Office of the PNP Chief.–
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 well as strategic movements, deployment, placement,

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e373a8f6ba6a092c0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/14
11/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

utilization of the PNP or any of its units and personal, including

its equipment, facilities and other resources. Such command and
direction of the Chief of the PNP may be delegated to subordinate
officials with respect to the units under their respective
commands, in accordance with the rules and regulations
prescribed by the Commission. The Chief of the PNP shall also
have the power to issue detailed implementing policies and
instructions regarding personnel, funds, properties, records,
correspondence and such other matters as may be necessary to
effectively carry out the functions, powers and duties of the
Bureau. The Chief of the PNP shall be appointed by the President
from among the senior officers down to the rank of the chief
superintendent, subject to confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments:Provided, That the Chief of the PNP shall

243

VOL. 312, AUGUST 11, 1999 243

Manalo vs. Sistoza

serve a term of office not to exceed four (4) years: Provided,

further, That in times of war or other national emergency
declared1
by Congress, the President may extend such term of
office.– (italics supplied)
Sec. 31. Appointment of PNP Officers and Members.–The
appointment of the officers and members of the PNP shall be
effected in the following manner:

(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 Service Commission;
(b) Inspector to Superintendent–Appointed by the Chief of the
PNP, as recommended by their immediate superiors, and
attested by the Civil Service Commission;
(c) Senior Superintendent to Deputy Director General–
Appointed by the President upon recommendation of the
Chief of the PNP, with the proper endorsement by the
Chairman of the Civil Service Commission and subject to
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments; and

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e373a8f6ba6a092c0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/14
11/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

(d) Director General–Appointed by the President from among

the senior officers down to the rank of chief
superintendent in the service, subject to confirmation by
the Commission on Appointments; Provided, That the
Chief of the PNP shall serve a tour of duty not to exceed
four (4) years; Provided, further, That, in times of war or
other national emergency declared by Congress, the
President may extend such tour of duty.– (italics
supplied)

In accordance therewith, on March 10, 1992, the President

of the Philippines, through then Executive Secretary
Franklin M. Drilon, promoted the fifteen (15) respondent
police officers herein, by appointing them to positions in
the Philippine National Police
2
with the rank of Chief
Superintendent to Director, namely:

_______________

1 Republic Act 6975, otherwise known as the Department of Interior

and Local Government Act of 1990.
2 Rollo, p. 15.

244

244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manalo vs. Sistoza

Chief Supt. PEDRO G. SISTOZA - Director

Chief Supt. REGINO ARO III - Director
Chief Supt. NICASIO MA. - Director
CUSTODIO
Chief Supt. GUILLERMO - Director
DOMONDON
Chief Supt. RAYMUNDO L. LOGAN - Director
Senior Supt. WILFREDO - Chief
REOTUTAR Superintendent
Senior Supt. FELINO C. PACHECO, - Chief
JR. Superintendent

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e373a8f6ba6a092c0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/14
11/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

Senior Supt. RUBEN J. CRUZ - Chief

Superintendent
Senior Supt. GERONIMO B. - Chief
VALDERRAMA Superintendent
Senior Supt. MERARDO G. ABAYA - Chief
Superintendent
Senior Supt. EVERLINO NARTATEZ - Chief
Superintendent
Senior Supt. ENRIQUE T. BULAN - Chief
Superintendent
Senior Supt. PEDRO J. NAVARRO - Chief
Superintendent
Senior Supt. DOMINADOR - Chief
MANGUBAT Superintendent
Senior Supt. RODOLFO M. GARCIA - Chief
Superintendent

The appointments of respondent police officers were in a

permanent capacity. Their letters of appointment stated in
part:

“By virtue hereof, they may qualify and enter upon the
performance of the duties of the office, furnishing this office and
3
the Civil Service Commission with copies of their oath of office.–

Without their names submitted to the Commission on

Appointments for confirmation, 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.
On October 21, 1992, the petitioner brought before this
Court this present original petition for prohibition, as a
taxpayer suit, to assail the legality of subject appointments
and disbursements made therefor.

_______________

3 Ibid.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e373a8f6ba6a092c0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/14
11/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

245

VOL. 312, AUGUST 11, 1999 245

Manalo vs. Sistoza

Petitioner contends that:

“I. Respondent officers, in assuming their offices and discharging

the functions attached thereto, despite their invalid
appointments, in view of the failure to secure the required
confirmation of the Commission on Appointments as required by
the Constitution and the law, are acting without or in excess of
their jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, considering
that:

A. Republic Act 6975 is a valid law that duly requires

confirmation of the appointments of officers from the rank
of senior superintendent and higher by the Commission
on Appointments;
B. The Philippine National Police is akin to the Armed
Forces where the Constitution specifically requires
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

II. 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.–

The petition must fail. It is not impressed with merit.

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 maintains
that the respect accorded to each department of the
government requires that the court should avoid, as much
as possible, deciding constitutional questions.
The Court agrees with petitioner. However, it is equally
demanded 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. Courts have
the inherent authority to determine whether a statute
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e373a8f6ba6a092c0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/14
11/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

enacted by the legislature

4
transcends the limit delineated
by the fundamental law. When it

_______________

4 Tatad vs. Secretary of the Department of Energy, 282 SCRA 337.

246

246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manalo vs. Sistoza

does, the courts will not hesitate to strike down such

unconstitutional law.
The power to make appointments is vested in the Chief
Executive by Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution,
which provides:

“Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent
of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the
executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, or 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. He shall also appoint all other
officers of the Government whose appointments 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, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or
boards.
The President shall have the power to make appointments
during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or
compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until
disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the
next adjournment of the Congress.–

The aforecited provision of the Constitution has been the

subject of several cases on the issue of the restrictive
function of the Commission on Appointments with respect
to the appointing power of the President. This court
touched upon the historical antecedent of 5 the said
provision in the case of Sarmiento III vs. Mison in which
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e373a8f6ba6a092c0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/14
11/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

it was ratiocinated upon that Section 16 of Article VII of

the 1987 Constitution requiring confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments of certain appointments
issued by the President contemplates a system of checks
and balances between the executive and legislative
branches of government. Experience showed that when
almost all presidential appointments required the consent
of the Commission on Appointments, as was the case
under the 1935 Constitution, the commission became a
venue of “horse-

_______________

5 156 SCRA 549.

247

VOL. 312, AUGUST 11, 1999 247

Manalo vs. Sistoza

6
trading– and similar malpractices. On the other hand,
placing absolute power to make appointments in the
President with hardly any check by the legislature, as
what happened under 1973 Constitution, leads to abuse of
such power. Thus was perceived the need to establish a
“middle ground– between the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions. The framers of the 1987 Constitution
deemed it imperative to subject certain high positions in
the government to the power of confirmation of the
Commission on Appointments and to allow other positions
within the exclusive appointing power of the President.
Conformably, as consistently interpreted and 7
ruled in
the leading case of Sarmiento III vs. Mison, 8
and in the
subsequent cases of Bautista vs.9
Salonga, Quintos-Deles 10
vs. Constitutional Commission, and Calderon vs. Carale;
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

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e373a8f6ba6a092c0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/14
11/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

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

_______________

6 Ibid., p. 556.
7 Ibid.
8 172 SCRA 160.
9 177 SCRA 259.
10 208 SCRA 254.

248

248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manalo vs. Sistoza

11
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.
Consequently, unconstitutional are 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. But the unconstitutionality
of the aforesaid sections notwithstanding, the rest of
Republic Act 6975 stands. It is well-settled that when
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e373a8f6ba6a092c0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/14
11/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

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,
12
the statute remains valid without
its voided sections.
It is petitioner’s submission that the Philippine
National Police is akin to the Armed Forces of the
Philippines and therefore, the appointments of police
officers whose rank is equal to that of colonel or naval
captain require confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments.
This contention is equally untenable. 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.–

On the other hand, Section 6 of the same Article of the

Constitution ordains that:

_______________

11 232 SCRA 553.

12 Tatad vs. Secretary of the Department of Energy, 282 SCRA 337.

249

VOL. 312, AUGUST 11, 1999 249

Manalo vs. Sistoza

“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.–

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e373a8f6ba6a092c0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/14
11/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

To so distinguish the police force from the armed forces,

Congress enacted Republic Act 6975 which states in part:

Section 2. Declaration of policy–It is hereby declared to be the

policy of the State to promote peace and order, ensure public
safety and further strengthen local government capability aimed
towards the effective delivery of the basic services to the citizenry
through the establishment of a highly efficient and competent
police force that is national in scope and civilian in character. x x
x
The policy force shall be organized, trained and equipped
primarily for the performance of police functions. Its national
scope and civilian character shall be paramount. No element of
the police force shall be military nor shall any position thereof be
occupied by active members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines.

Thereunder, 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.
In view of the foregoing disquisition and conclusion, the
respondent former Secretary Salvador M. Enriquez III of
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 appointments are
valid.
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition under
consideration is hereby DISMISSED. No pronouncement
as to costs.
250

250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Accion

SO ORDERED.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e373a8f6ba6a092c0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/14
11/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

          Davide, (C.J.), Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug,

Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo,
Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Petition dismissed.

Notes.–The first duty of the court is to apply the law, as

the court has no power to change but only to interpret the
law as it stands at any given time. (Paredes vs. Manalo,
244 SCRA 64 [1995])
Officers of the Philippine National Police, are civilian
personnel of the Government. (Acop vs. Office of the
Ombudsman, 248 SCRA 566 [1995])

––o0o––

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e373a8f6ba6a092c0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/14