Manalo Vs Sistoza

MANALO VS SISTOZA

(312 SCRA 239) FACTS:

In a special civil action for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court petitioner !uestions the constitutionalit" and le#alit" of the per$anent appoint$ents issued b" the for$er %resident Cora&on A!uino to the respondents senior officers of the %'% ho ere pro$oted to the ran of Chief Superintendent and *irector ithout their  appoint$ents sub$itted to the Co$$ission on Appoint$ents for confir$ation under  Sec+ 16 Art ,II of the 19-. Constitution and RA 69.5 otherise non as /ocal 0overn$ent Act of 199+ I$pleaded in the case is for$er Secretar" of ud#et and ana#e$ent 4nri!ue& III ho approved and effected the disburse$ent for the salaries and other e$olu$ents of subect police officers+

RULING:

It is the petitioners sub$ission that the %'% is ain to the A% and therefore the appoint$ents of police officers hose ran is usual to that of colonel or naval captain re!uire re!uire confir confir$at $ation ion b" the CA+ 7his conten contentio tion n is e!uall" e!uall" untenabl untenable+ e+ 7he 7he %'% is separate and distinct fro$ A%+ 7he Constitution no less sets forth the distinction+ 7hus directors and chief superintendents of the %'% such as the herein respondent police offi officer cers s do not not fall fall unde underr the the first first cate cate#o #or" r" of pres presid iden enti tial al appo appoin inte tees es re!u re!uir irin in# # conf confir ir$at $atio ion n b" the the CA+ CA+ In vie vie of the the fore# fore#oi oin# n# dis! dis!ui uisi siti tion on and and conc conclu lusi sion on the the respondent for$er Sec+ 4nri!ue& III of * did not act ith #rave abuse of discretion in authori&in# and effectin# disburse$ents of police officers hose appoint$ents ere valid+ %etitioner theori&es that RA 69.5 eno"s the presu$ption of constitutionalit"+ 8e $aintains that the respect accorded to each depart$ent of the #overn$ent re!uires that the court should avoid as $uch as possible decidin# constitutional !uestions+ 8oever it is e!uall" de$anded fro$ the court as #uardians of the Constitution to see to it that ever" la passed b" Con#ress is not repu#nant to the or#anic la+  As consistently interpreted interpreted and ruled in the leading case of Sarmiento III III vs. Mison, and in the subsequent cases of Bautista vs. Salonga, Quintos-eles vs. !onstitutional !ommission, and !alderon vs.!arale" under Section #$, Article %II, of the !onstitution, there are four groups of officers of the government to be appointed by the &resident' (irst, the heads of the e)ecutive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from the ran* of colonel or naval captain, and o ther officers +hose appointments are vested in him in this !onstitution" Second, all other officers of the overnment +hose appointments are not other+ise  provided for by la+" hird, those +hom the &resident may be authoried by la+ to appoint"

(ourth, officers lo+er in ran* +hose a ppointments the !ongress may by la+ vest in the &resident alone. It is +ell-settled that only presidential appointments belonging to the first group require the confirmation by the !ommission on Appointments. he appointments of respondent officers +ho are not +ithin the first category, need not be confirmed by the !ommission on Appointments. As held in the case of arrosa vs. Singson ##!ongress cannot by la+ e)pand the p o+er of confirmation of the !ommission on Appointments and require confirmation of appointments of other government officials not mentioned in the first sentence of Section #$ of Article %II of the #/01 !onstitution. To so distinguish the police force from the armed forces, Congress enacted Republic Act 6975 which states in part: Sec. 2. eclaration of policy. 3 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 to+ards the effective delivery of the basic services to the citienry through the establishment of a highly efficient and competent police force that is national in scope and civilian in character. . . . he policy force shall be organied, trained and equipped primarily for the performance of  police functions. Its national scope and civilian character shall be paramount. 4o element of the police force shall be military nor shall any position thereof be occupied by active members of the Armed (orces of the &hilippines.