G.R. No. 106724 February 9, 1994
THE NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION, represented by its Acting Chairman, Cesar Sarino, Teodolo C. Natividad, Vice-Chairman and Executive Officer, Brig. Gen. Virgilio H. David, Edgar Dula Torre, Guillermo P. Enriquez, Commissioners, and Chief Supt. Levy D. Macasiano Director for Personnel, petitioners, vs. Honorable Judge Salvador de Guzman, Jr., Chief Supt. Norberto M. Lina, Chief Supt. Ricardo Trinidad, Jr., Sr. Supt. Manuel Suarez, Supt. Justito B. Tagum, Sr. Supt. Tranquilino Aspiras, Sr., Sr. Supt. Ramon I. Navarro, Sr. Supt. Jose P. Suria, Sr. Supt. Agaton Abiera, Chief Insp. Bienvenido Torres, and the National (ROTC) Alumni Association Inc. (NARRA), represented by its President Col. Benjamin Gundran, and Director Hermogenes Peralta, Jr., respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from the implementation of the compulsory retirement provision (Section 39) of Republic Act No. 6975 (the PNP Law), which set the retirement age for PNP officers at fifty-six (56). Petitioners sent retirement notices to private respondents, who were all former members of the Philippine Constabulary (PC) and had reached age fifty-six. Private respondents filed a complaint for declaratory relief, arguing that Section 89 of the same law, a transitory provision, applied to them. Section 89 provided a four-year phased reduction of the retirement age for members of the “INP” from sixty (60) to fifty-seven (57). They contended that the term “INP” (Integrated National Police) under Section 89 included the PC, as the PC was the nucleus of the INP established under P.D. No. 765. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of private respondents, declaring that the term “INP” in Section 89 included all members of the PNP irrespective of original status, and that Section 39 would only become operative after the four-year transition period. The court also made the preliminary injunction permanent. Petitioners sought the reversal of this decision.

ISSUE

Whether or not the term “INP” (Integrated National Police) as used in the transitory provision (Section 89) of R.A. No. 6975 includes former members of the Philippine Constabulary (PC), thereby entitling them to the phased retirement schedule (ages 60 to 57) instead of the immediate compulsory retirement at age fifty-six (56) under Section 39.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. It reversed and set aside the decision of the respondent judge and lifted the writ of injunction. The Court held that the term “INP” in Section 89 of R.A. No. 6975 does not include the members of the Philippine Constabulary (PC). The law itself distinguishes between the INP and the PC in various provisions (Sections 23, 85, and 86). Section 90 of R.A. No. 6975 defines “INP” as referring to the local police forces established under several Presidential Decrees, excluding the PC. The legislative intent, as revealed in the Bicameral Conference Committee deliberations, was to apply the transitory retirement provision only to the local police forces, who previously retired at age 60 under P.D. No. 1184, to give them time to adjust to the new, lower retirement age. In contrast, PC members were already subject to a compulsory retirement age of fifty-six (56) under existing AFP laws. The classification was based on substantial distinctions, germane to the law’s purpose, and applied equally to all members of the local police force class. Applying Section 89 to PC officers would lead to the absurd result of temporarily increasing their retirement age only to lower it again after the transition period without any rational basis. Therefore, Section 39, setting the retirement age at fifty-six (56), was immediately applicable to the private respondents as former PC members.