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 after disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress. (Sec. 16, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution) |
|---|
On December 13, 1990, former President Corazon C. Aquino signed into law Republic Act 6975, creating the DILG. 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 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.
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
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
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.”
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)
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.”
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
Post a Comment