Scribd
Upload
550 views2 pages

Digest G.R No. 107369 Manalo vs. Sistoza

The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Appointments to the Philippine National Police do not require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, as the PNP is separate from the armed forces. 2) Sections of the law requiring confirmation of PNP appointments by the Commission on Appointments are unconstitutional. 3) The appointments of respondent PNP officers were valid and did not require confirmation.

Uploaded by

Michelle Catadman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
550 views2 pages

Digest G.R No. 107369 Manalo vs. Sistoza

The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Appointments to the Philippine National Police do not require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, as the PNP is separate from the armed forces. 2) Sections of the law requiring confirmation of PNP appointments by the Commission on Appointments are unconstitutional. 3) The appointments of respondent PNP officers were valid and did not require confirmation.

Uploaded by

Michelle Catadman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Manalo vs.

Sistozar
G.R. No. 107369

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

Ruling:

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)

You might also like