G.R. No. 133132 January 25, 2000
Alexis C. Canonizado, Edgar Dula Torres, and Rogelio A. Pureza, petitioners, vs. Hon. Alexander P. Aguirre, as Executive Secretary, Hon. Emilia T. Boncodin, as Secretary of Budget and Management, Jose Percival L. Adiong, Romeo L. Cairme and Virginia U. Cristobal, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were appointed Commissioners of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) under Republic Act No. 6975, serving fixed six-year terms that had not yet expired. On March 6, 1998, Republic Act No. 8551, the Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998, took effect. Section 8 of this new law expressly declared that the terms of the incumbent Commissioners were deemed expired upon its effectivity, thereby separating petitioners from office. The law allowed for the reappointment of a Commissioner who had served less than two years, which applied to respondent Adiong, but not to petitioners.
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of RA 8551, specifically Sections 4 and 8, arguing that their removal violated their constitutional right to security of tenure. They contended that the law effectively removed them without cause. Public respondents defended the law, asserting it constituted a bona fide reorganization that impliedly abolished the old NAPOLCOM under RA 6975 and replaced it with a new one, citing changes in composition and functions aimed at making the body more civilian in character as mandated by the Constitution.

ISSUE

Whether Republic Act No. 8551, specifically Section 8 thereof, is unconstitutional for violating the petitioners’ right to security of tenure by legislatively terminating their appointments before the expiration of their fixed terms.

RULING

The Supreme Court declared Section 8 of RA 8551 UNCONSTITUTIONAL and void. The Court held that petitioners, as civil service officers with fixed terms, possessed a secured tenure and could only be removed for cause as provided by law. The legislative declaration deeming their terms expired constituted a removal without cause. The Court rejected the argument that RA 8551 effected a bona fide abolition of the NAPOLCOM. A valid abolition requires an intention to do away with the office wholly and permanently. Here, RA 8551 did not abolish the NAPOLCOM but merely reorganized it by amending its composition and functions. The office continued to exist with the same name and essentially the same powers. Where the office is not abolished but merely reorganized, and the new office performs substantially similar functions, the removal of incumbents violates their security of tenure. The changes introduced were insufficient to support a claim of good faith abolition; they were primarily adjustments in structure and policy. Consequently, the law operated as an invalid removal device, circumventing the constitutional protection of security of tenure. Petitioners were ordered reinstated to complete their unexpired terms.