View full case

JESULITO A. MANALO v. PEDRO G. SISTOZA

FACTS:

This case involves a special civil action for Prohibition filed by petitioners challenging 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 (PNP) without submitting their appointments for confirmation to the Commission on Appointments, as required by the Constitution and Republic Act 6975. The antecedent facts show that on December 13, 1990, Republic Act 6975 was signed into law, creating the Department of Interior and Local Government. The said law provides that the appointment of PNP officers, including those holding the ranks of Chief Superintendent to Director General, must be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. However, on March 10, 1992, former President Aquino promoted fifteen police officers to the ranks of Chief Superintendent to Director without submitting their appointments for confirmation. The police officers took their oath of office and assumed their positions, with the Department of Budget and Management authorizing disbursements for their salaries and other emoluments. The petitioner filed a petition for prohibition, arguing that the police officers are acting without or in excess of their jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion because they did not obtain confirmation from the Commission on Appointments, as required by law. The petitioner also contends that the Secretary of Budget and Management acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in allowing and effecting disbursements for the police officers' salaries despite the alleged unconstitutionality and illegality of their appointments.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the permanent appointments issued by former President Corazon C. Aquino to the respondent senior officers of the Philippine National Police without confirmation from the Commission on Appointments are unconstitutional and illegal.

  2. Whether the disbursements made by the Secretary of Budget and Management for the salaries and emoluments of the respondent police officers are unconstitutional and illegal.

RULING:

  1. The petition is dismissed. The court finds no basis for departing from the ruling laid down in previous cases. The permanent appointments of the respondent senior officers of the Philippine National Police without confirmation from the Commission on Appointments are not unconstitutional and illegal. Similarly, the disbursements made by the Secretary of Budget and Management for their salaries and emoluments are not unconstitutional and illegal.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The power of the Commission on Appointments to confirm appointments issued by the Chief Executive (President) is limited and does not extend to all positions.

  • The appointment of PNP officers and members, including the rank of chief superintendent and higher, are subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

  • The Philippine National Police is not similar to the Armed Forces in terms of the requirement of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

  • The validity of appointments and disbursements for salaries and emoluments should be analyzed based on the applicable laws and constitutional provisions.