Manalo v. SistozaDate of Promulgation: 11 August 1999Nature: Special Civil Action in the SC. ProhibitionFacts:

Concerned with limits of power of Commission of Appointments to confirm appointments issued by the Chief Executive

Question constitutionality and legality of permanent appointments issued by Pres. Cory Aquino to senior officers of PNP who were promoted to ranks of Chief Superintendent and Director without appointments submitted to Commission on Appointments for confirmation under Sec. 16, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution and RA 6975 (Local Gov’t Act of 1990). Secretary of Budget and Management Enriquez impleaded for disbursements for salaries and other emoluments of police officers

13 December 1990: RA 6975 creating Department of Interior and Local Government was signed into law by Pres. Cory Aquino (1) providing for powers, functions and term of office of PNP chief [Sec. 26]; (2) Appointment of PNP officers and members [Sec. 31]

10 March 1992: President through Exec. Sec. Drilon promoted 15 respondent police officers by appointing them to position in PNP with rank of Chief Superintendent to Director

Appointments of police were in permanent capacity

Without submission of their names to CA for confirmation, police officers took their oath, salaries were disbursed by Sec. Enriquez

21 October 1992: Petition for prohibition to assail legality of appointments and disbursements thereof.

Issues: (1) WON the appointments made by the President were valid even

without the confirmation of Commission on Appointments(2) WON there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of Sec. Enriquez in the disbursements of salaries and emoluments of the respondent police officers

Ruling: Petition DISMISSED

Held: (1) YES, appointments are valid. PNP, herein respondents, do not fall under the first category of presidential appointees requiring the confirmation by Commission on Appointments.

(2) NO, there is no grave abuse of discretion in authorizing and effecting disbursements for salaries and other emoluments of police officers whose appointments are valid

Ratio: On valid appointments:

Presumption of Constitutionality Power to make appointments

vested in Chief Executive by Sec. 16, Art VII

Sec, 16, Art VII provide for four groups of government to be appointed by President: (1) Heads of executive

departments, ambassadors, either public ministers and consuls, officers of armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution;

(2) All other officers of thee Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law;

(3) Those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint

(4) Officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone.

1

ONLY PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS BELONGING TO FIRST GROUP REQUIRE THE CONFIRMATION BY COMMISSION OF APPOINTMENTS.

As held in Tarrosa v. Singson Congress cannot by law expand the power of confirmation of Commission on Appointments and require confirmation of appointments of other government officials not mentioned in first sentence of Sec. 16, Art VII

Unconstitutional Sec. 26 & 31 of RA 6975 which empower the Comm. On Appointments to confirm appointments of public officials whose appointments are not required by Constitution to be confirmed. However, rest of RA 6975 stands when provisions of law declared void are severable from main statute and removal of unconstitutional provision would not affect validity and enforceability of other provisions, statute remains valid without voided sections.

PNP is separate from AFP so, issue on PNP appointment similar to those stated in first set aforementioned regarding AFP. See Art. XVI, Sec 4 & 6, 1987 Constitution. See Sec. 2, RA 6975 “.. no element of the police force shall be military nor shall any position thereof be occupied by active members of AFP”

On grave abuse of discretion: valid appointment = valid disbursement. THUS, no grave abuse of discretion

2