G.R. No. 107369, August 11, 1999
JESULITO A. MANALO, petitioner, vs. PEDRO G. SISTOZA, REGINO ARO III, NICASIO MA. CUSTODIO, GUILLERMO DOMONDON, RAYMUNDO L. LOGAN, WILFREDO R. REOTUTAR, FELINO C. PACHECO, JR., RUBEN J. CRUZ, GERONIMO B. VALDERRAMA, MERARDO G. ABAYA, EVERLINO B. NARTATEZ, ENRIQUE T. BULAN, PEDRO J. NAVARRO, DOMINADOR M. MANGUBAT, RODOLFO M. GARCIA and HONORABLE SALVADOR M. ENRIQUEZ II In His Capacity as Secretary of Budget and Management, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jesulito A. Manalo filed a special civil action for Prohibition to question the constitutionality and legality of the permanent appointments issued by former President Corazon C. Aquino to fifteen respondent senior officers of the Philippine National Police (PNP). The respondents were promoted to the ranks of Chief Superintendent and Director on March 10, 1992, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6975 (the Department of Interior and Local Government Act of 1990). Section 31(c) of RA 6975 stated that appointments from Senior Superintendent to Deputy Director General shall be appointed by the President, “subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.” The appointments of the respondent officers were made in a permanent capacity, and they took their oaths and assumed office without their names being submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation. The then Secretary of Budget and Management, Salvador M. Enriquez III, authorized disbursements for their salaries and emoluments. Petitioner, as a taxpayer, assailed these appointments and disbursements as illegal for lack of the required confirmation.

ISSUE

Whether the appointments of the respondent PNP officers to the ranks of Chief Superintendent and Director, without confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, are valid under Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act No. 6975.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit. The appointments are valid and do not require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. The Court ruled that Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution enumerates the specific presidential appointees requiring confirmation: heads of 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 the Constitution. All other presidential appointments are deemed included in the second sentence of Section 16, which does not require confirmation unless Congress, by law, expressly requires it. RA 6975, in mandating confirmation for PNP officers from Senior Superintendent upwards, sought to add to the first category of appointees requiring confirmation. However, this is unconstitutional as it violates the principle of checks and balances and encroaches upon the President’s appointing power. The Constitution’s list is exclusive, and Congress cannot, by law, expand it. Furthermore, the PNP is distinct from the Armed Forces of the Philippines; it is a civilian institution. Therefore, PNP officers, such as Directors and Chief Superintendents, do not fall under the category of “officers of the armed forces” requiring confirmation. Consequently, the respondent officers’ appointments without confirmation are valid, and the Secretary of Budget and Management did not act with grave abuse of discretion in authorizing the related disbursements.