Documents

320. Carpio vs. Executive.doc

Description
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 96409 February 14, 1992 CITIZEN J. NTONIO M. CRPIO, petitioner, vs. T!E E ECUTI#E SECRETR$, T!E SECRETR$ OF %OC% GO#ERNMENTS, T!E SECRETR$ OF NTION% &EFENSE a'( T!E NTION% TRESURER, respondents. PRS, J.: At the very outset, it should be well to set forth the constitutional provision that is at the core of the controversy now confronting us, thus Article ! #, $ection % &he $tate shall establish and 'aintain one police f
Categories
Published
of 6
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT ManilaEN BANC  G.R. No. 96409 February 14, 1992CITIZEN J. NTONIO M. CRPIO, petitioner, vs. T!E E ECUTI#E SECRETR$, T!E SECRETR$ OF %OC% GO#ERNMENTS, T!E SECRETR$ OF NTION% &EFENSE a'( T!E NTION% TRESURER, respondents.  PRS, J.:  At the very outset, it should be well to set forth the constitutional provision that is at the core of the controversynow confronting us, thus Article ! #, $ection %&he $tate shall establish and 'aintain one police force, which stall be national in scope andcivilian in character, to be ad'inistered and controlled by a national police co''ission. &heauthority of local e(ecutives over the police units in their )urisdiction shall be provided by law. 1 *ith the afore+uoted provision in 'ind, Congress passed Republic Act No. %- entitled /AN AC&E$&AB0#$1#N2 &1E P1#0#PP#NE NA&#3NA0 P30#CE 4N5ER A RE3R2AN#6E5 5EPAR&MEN& 37 &1E#N&ER#3R AN5 03CA0 23 ERNMEN&, AN5 73R 3&1ER P4RP3$E$/ as the consolidated version of 1ouseBill No. 89%:; and $enate Bill No. ;%9.7ollowing the said Act<s approval by President Cora=on C. A+uino on 5ece'ber :9, :>, it was published on5ece'ber :-, :>. 2 Presently, however, petitioner as citi=en, ta(payer and 'e'ber of the Philippine Bar sworn to defend theConstitution, filed the petition now at bar on 5ece'ber 8>, :>, see?ing this Court<s declaration of unconstitutionality of RA %- with prayer for te'porary restraining order.But in an en banc resolution dated 5ece'ber 8-, :>, *e si'ply re+uired the public respondents to file their Co''ent, without however giving due course to the petition and the prayer therein. 1ence, the Act too? effectafter fifteen days following its publication, or on @anuary :, ::. ) Before we settle down on the 'erits of the petition, it would li?ewise be well to discuss albeit briefly the history of our police force and the reasons for the ordination of $ection %, Article ! # in our present Constitution.5uring the Co''onwealth period, we had the Philippine Constabulary as the nucleus of the Philippine 2round7orce P27, now the Ar'ed 7orces of the Philippines A7P. &he PC was 'ade part of the P27 but itsad'inistrative, supervisory and directional control was handled by the then 5epart'ent of the #nterior. After thewar, it re'ained as the /National Police/ under the 5epart'ent of National 5efense, as a 'a)or serviceco'ponent of the A7P. 4 0ater, the #ntegration Act of :- *   created the #ntegrated National Police #NP under the 3ffice of the President,with the PC as the nucleus, and the local police forces as the civilian co'ponents. &he PC#NP was headed bythe PC Chief who, as concurrent 5irector2eneral of the #NP, e(ercised co''and functions over the #NP. 6 &he National Police Co''ission NAP30C3M +  e(ercised ad'inistrative control and supervision while the locale(ecutives e(ercised operational supervision and direction over the #NP units assigned within their respectivelocalities.  &he setup whereby the #NP was placed under the co''and of the 'ilitary co'ponent, which is the PC, severelyeroded the #NP<s civilian character and the 'ultiplicity in the governance of the PC#NP resulted in inefficientpolice service. 9  Moreover, the integration of the national police forces with the PC also resulted in ine+uities sincethe 'ilitary co'ponent had superior benefits and privileges. 10 &he Constitutional Co''ission of :D% was fully aware of the structural errors that beset the syste'. &hus, Co'.&eodulo C. Natividad e(plained that 1  ((( ((( (((MR. NA&# #5A5. . . . &he basic tenet of a 'odern police organi=ation is tore'ove it fro' the 'ilitary. 11 ((( ((( (((1ere in our draft Constitution, we have already 'ade a constitutional postulate that the 'ilitarycannot occupy any civil service position in $ection % of the Article on the Civil $ervice 12 F&herefore, in ?eeping with this and because of the universal acceptance that a police force is acivilian function, a public service, and should not be perfor'ed by 'ilitary force, one of the basicrefor's we are presenting here is that it should be separated fro' the 'ilitary force which is thePC. 1) ((( ((( (((7urther'ore((( ((( (((. . . the civilian police cannot blosso' into full profession because 'ost of the ?ey positions arebeing occupied by the 'ilitary $o, it is up to this Co''ission to re'ove the police fro' such asituation so that it can develop into a truly professional civilian police. . . . 14 1ence, the /one police force, national in scope, and civilian in character/ provision that is now Article ! #, $ection% of the :D- Constitution. And so we now co'e to the 'erits of the petition at hand.#n the 'ain, petitioner herein respectfully advances the view that RA %- e'asculated the National PoliceCo''ission by li'iting its power /to administrative  control/ over the Philippine National Police PNP, thus,/ control  / re'ained with the 5epart'ent $ecretary under who' both the National Police Co''ission and the PNPwere placed. 1* *e do not share this view.&o begin with, one need only refer to the funda'entally accepted principle in Constitutional 0aw that the Presidenthas control of all e(ecutive depart'ents, bureaus, and offices to lay at rest petitioner<s contention on the 'atter.&his presidential power of control over the e(ecutive branch of govern'ent e(tends over all e(ecutive officersfro' Cabinet $ecretary to the lowliest cler? 1+  and has been held by us, in the land'ar? case of Mondano vs . Silvosa , 1  to 'ean /the power of the PresidentF to alter or 'odify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the perfor'ance of his duties and to substitute the )udg'ent of the for'er with that of the latter./ #t issaid to be at the very /heart of the 'eaning of Chief E(ecutive./ 19 E+ually well accepted, as a corollary rule to the control powers of the President, is the /5octrine of GualifiedPolitical Agency/. As the President cannot be e(pected to e(ercise his control powers all at the sa'e ti'e and inperson, 20  he will have to delegate so'e of the' to his Cabinet 'e'bers.4nder this doctrine, which recogni=es the establish'ent of a single e(ecutive, 21  /all e(ecutive and ad'inistrativeorgani=ations are ad)uncts of the E(ecutive 5epart'ent, the heads of the various e(ecutive depart'ents areassistants and agents of the Chief E(ecutive, and, e(cept in cases where the Chief E(ecutive is re+uired by theConstitution or law to act in person on the e(igencies of the situation de'and that he act personally, the'ultifarious e(ecutive and ad'inistrative functions of the Chief E(ecutive are perfor'ed by and through thee(ecutive depart'ents, and the acts of the Secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated in theregular course of business, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive ./ 22   e'phasis ours&hus, and in short, /the President<s power of control is directly e(ercised by hi' over the 'e'bers of the Cabinetwho, in turn, and by his authority, control the bureaus and other offices under their respective )urisdictions in thee(ecutive depart'ent./ 2)  Additionally, the circu'stance that the NAP30C3M and the PNP are placed under the reorgani=ed 5epart'ent of #nterior and 0ocal 2overn'ent is 'erely an ad'inistrative realign'ent that would bolster a syste' of coordinationand cooperation a'ong the citi=enry, local e(ecutives and the integrated law enforce'ent agencies and publicsafety agencies created under the assailed Act, 24  the funding of the PNP being in large part subsidi=ed by thenational govern'ent. 2  $uch organi=ational setup does not detract fro' the 'andate of the Constitution that the national police forceshall be ad'inistered and controlled by a national police co''ission as at any rate, and in fact, the Act in+uestion ade+uately provides for ad'inistration and control at the co''ission level, as shown in the followingprovisions, to wit$ec. :;. Powers and Functions of the Commission . H &he Co''ission shall e(ercise thefollowing powers and functions((( ((( (((i Approve or 'odify plans and progra's on education and training, logistical re+uire'ents,co''unications, records, infor'ation syste's, cri'e laboratory, cri'e prevention and cri'ereportingI) Affir', reverse or 'odify, through the National Appellate Board, personnel disciplinary actionsinvolving de'otion or dis'issal fro' the service i'posed upon 'e'bers of the PhilippineNational Police by the Chief of the PNPI? E(ercise appellate )urisdiction through .the regional. appellate boards over ad'inistrativecases against police'en and over decisions on clai's for police benefitsI((( ((( ((($ec. 8%. &he Co''and and direction of the PNP shall be vested in the Chief of the PNP . . .$uch co''and and direction of the Chief of the PNP 'ay be delegated to subordinate officialswith respect to the units under their respective co''ands, in accordance with the rules andregulations prescribed by the Co''ission. . . .((( ((( ((($ec. 9. . . . &o enhance police operational efficiency and effectiveness, the Chief of the PNP 'ayconstitute such other support units as 'ay be necessary sub)ect to the approval of theCo''ission. . . .((( ((( ((($ec. 9-. . . . &here shall be established a perfor'ance evaluation syste' which shall bead'inistered in accordance with the rules, regulations and standardsI and a code of conductpro'ulgated by the Co''ission for 'e'bers of the PNP. . . .((( ((( (((Petitioner further asserts that in 'anifest derogation of the power of control of the NAP30C3M over the PNP, RA%- vested the power to choose the PNP Provincial 5irector and the Chiefs of Police in the 2overnors andMayors, respectivelyI the power of /operational supervision and control/ over police units in city and 'unicipal'ayorsI in the Civil $ervice Co''ission, participation in appoint'ents to the positions of $enior $uperintendentto 5eputy 5irector2eneral as well as the ad'inistration of +ualifying entrance e(a'inationsI disciplinary powersover PNP 'e'bers in the /People<s 0aw Enforce'ent Boards/ and in city and 'unicipal 'ayors. 2* 3nce 'ore, we find no real controversy upon the foregoing assertions.#t is true that when the Constitutional Co''issioners of :D% provided that the authority of local e(ecutives over the police units in their )urisdiction shall be provided by law, they intended that the daytoday functions of policewor? li?e cri'e, investigation, cri'e prevention activities, traffic control, etc., would be under the operationalcontrol of the local e(ecutives as it would not be advisable to give full control of the police to the local e(ecutives. 26 &hey reasoned that in the past, this gave rise to warlordis', bossis', and sanctuaries for vices and abuses. 2+ #t would appear then that by vesting in the local e(ecutives the power to choose the officers in +uestion, the Actwent beyond the bounds of the Constitution<s intent.Not so. *e find light in the principle of constitutional construction that every presu'ption should be indulged infavor of constitutionality and the court in considering the validity of the statute in +uestion should give it suchreasonable construction as can be reached to bring it within the funda'ental law. 2 4nder the +uestioned provisions, which read as follows 3  5. PAR&#C#PA&#3N 37 03CA0 E!EC4&# E$ #N &1E A5M#N#$&RA&#3N 37 &1E PNP.$ec. :. Powers of Local overnment !fficials over the P P #nits or Forces .2overnors and 'ayors shall be deputi$ed as representatives  of the Co''ission in their respective territorial )urisdictions.  %s such , the local e(ecutives shall discharge the followingfunctionsa. Provincial 2overnor H : . . .&he provincial governor shall choose the provincial director fro' a list of three 9 eligiblesreco''ended by the PNP Regional 5irector.; . . . City and 'unicipal 'ayors shall have the following authority over the PNP units in their respective )urisdictionsi. Authority to choose the chief of police fro' a list of five  eligibles reco''ended by theProvincial Police 5irector. . . . E'phasis oursfull control re'ains with the National Police Co''ission.*e agree, and so hold, with the view of the $olicitor 2eneral that /there is no usurpation of the power of control of the NAP30C3M under $ection : because under this very sa'e provision, it is clear that the local e(ecutives areonly acting as representatives of the NAP30C3M. . . . As such deputies, they are answerable to the NAP30C3Mfor their actions in the e(ercise of their functions under that section. &hus, unless counter'anded by theNAP30C3M, their acts are valid and binding as acts of the NAP30C3M./ 29  #t is significant to note that the localofficials, as NAP30C3M representatives, will choose the officers concerned fro' a list of eligibles those who'eet the general +ualifications for appoint'ent to the PNP )0  to be reco''ended by PNP officials.&he sa'e holding is true with respect to the contention on the operational supervision and control e(ercised bythe local officials. &hose officials would si'ply be acting as representatives of the Co''ission. As regards the assertion involving the Civil $ervice Co''ission, suffice it to say that the +uestioned provisions,which read$ec. 9:.  %ppointment of P P !fficers and Members . H &he Appoint'ent of the officers and'e'bers of the PNP shall be effected in the following 'annera. Police 3fficer # to $enior Police 3fficer # . H Appointed by the PNP regional director for regional personnel or by the Chief of the PNP for national head+uarters personnel and attestedby the Civil $ervice Co''issionIb. #nspector to $uperintendent. H Appointed by the Chief of the PNP, as reco''ended by their i''ediate superiors, and attested by the Civil $ervice Co''issionIc. $enior $uperintendent to 5eputy 5irector2eneral. H Appointed by the President uponreco''endation of the Chief of the PNP, with proper endorse'ent by the Chair'an of the Civil$ervice Co''ission . . .$ec. 98. Examinations for Policemen . H &he Civil $ervice Co''ission shall ad'inister the+ualifying entrance e(a'inations for police'en on the basis of the standards set by theNAP30C3M.precisely underscore the civilian character of the national police force, and will undoubtedly professionali=e thesa'e.&he grant of disciplinary powers over PNP 'e'bers to the /People<s 0aw Enforce'ent Boards/ or the P0EBand city and 'unicipal 'ayors is also not in derogation of the co''ission<s power of control over the PNP.Pursuant to the Act, the Co''ission e(ercises appellate )urisdiction, thru the regional appellate boards, over decisions of both the P0EB and the said 'ayors. &his is so under $ection 8>c. 7urther'ore, it is theCo''ission which shall issue the i'ple'enting guidelines and procedures to be adopted by the P0EB for in theconduct of its hearings, and it 'ay assign NAP30C3M hearing officers to act as legal consultants of the P0EBs$ection ;9d;, d. 4
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x