G.R. No. L-28055, October 30, 1967
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Provincial Governor Delfin Montano, et al., respondents.

FACTS

In 1964, the Provincial Board of Cavite passed Resolution No. 27 creating the Cavite Department of Public Safety (CDPS) and appropriating funds for its operation. The resolution did not define the department’s powers and functions. Respondent Provincial Governor Delfin Montano subsequently issued Administrative Order No. 65-1, which defined the CDPS as the main law-enforcement arm of the province and outlined its general purposes and functions, including providing technical assistance to local police, crime investigation, maintaining a central record system, civil defense, firearms control, fire protection, and search and rescue operations. The respondent Governor then appointed the other respondents as Public Safety Officers. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, filed a petition for quo warranto, assailing the legality of the CDPS on the ground that the Province of Cavite has no authority to create public officers with police functions. The respondents refused to dissolve the department despite a demand from the President. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order. Respondents argued that the power to create such an agency was necessarily implied from Section 3 of the Local Autonomy Act ( Republic Act No. 2264 ), which authorizes provincial boards to appropriate money for the general welfare, and from Section 12 of the same Act, which calls for a liberal construction of implied powers in favor of local governments. They also invoked certain provisions of the Police Act of 1966 ( Republic Act No. 4864 ) referring to provincial police agencies as supporting the existence of such power.

ISSUE

Whether a provincial government has the implied power to create a provincial police force.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court declared Resolution No. 27 and Administrative Order No. 65-1 void, ordered the dissolution of the Cavite Department of Public Safety, and ousted the respondent public safety officers. The Court held that the power to create a police force is not implied from the provincial board’s authority to appropriate money for the general welfare under the Local Autonomy Act. Police power is inherently a function of the state, and municipal corporations (including provinces) exercise it only by delegation. The Court ruled that the delegation of police power must be expressly granted by statute or necessarily implied from a clear grant of power. No such express or necessarily implied grant exists for a province to create its own police force. The references to “provincial police” in the Police Act of 1966 were construed as pertaining only to existing municipal police forces operating at the provincial level, not to a police force created by the province itself. The Court further held that the general welfare clause and the rule of liberal construction for implied powers under the Local Autonomy Act cannot be used to justify the creation of a public office, as the power to create an office is legislative in nature and must be expressly conferred. The creation of the CDPS was therefore an unlawful exercise of power.