ENRIQUE V. MORALES, PETITIONER, VS. ABELARDO SUBIDO, AS COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE, RESPONDENT.

The question for resolution in this case is whether a person who
has served as captain in the police department of a city for at least three
years but does not possess a bachelor’s degree, is qualified for appointment as
chief of police.  The question calls for
an interpretation of the following provisions of section 10 of the Police Act
of 1966 (Republic Act 4864):

“Minimum qualification for appointment as Chief of Police
Agency.  – No person may be appointed
chief of a city police agency unless he holds a bachelor’s degree from a
recognized institution of learning and has served either in the Armed Forces of
the Philippines or the National Bureau of Investigation, or has served as chief
of police with exemplary record, or has served in the police department of any
city with the rank of captain or its equivalent therein for at least three
years; or any high school graduate who has served as officer in the Armed
Forces for at least eight years with the rank of captain and/ or higher.”

The petitioner Enrique V. Morales is the chief of the detective
bureau of the Manila Police Department and holds the rank of lieutenant
colonel.  He began his career in 1934 as
patrolman and gradually rose to his present position.  Upon the resignation of Brig. Gen. Ricardo G.
Papa on March 14, 1968, the
petitioner was designated acting chief of police of Manila
and, at the same time, given a provisional appointment to the same position by
the mayor of Manila.

On September 24, 1968
the respondent Commissioner Civil Service Abelardo Subido approved the designation of the petitioner but
rejected his appointment for “failure to meet the Mi­nimum educational and
civil service eligibility requirements for the said position.” Instead,
the respondent certified other persons as qualified for the post and called the
attention of the mayor to section 4 of the Decentralization Act of 1967 which
requires the filling of a vacancy within 30 days after its coming into
existence.  Earlier, on September 5, he announced
in the metropolitan newspapers that the position of chief of police of Manila
was vacant and listed the qualifications which applicants should possess.

The petitioner’s reaction to the announcement was a demand that
the respondent include him in a list of eligible and qualified applicants from
which the mayor might appoint one as chief of police of the city.  He contended that his service alone as
captain for more than three years in the Manila Police Department qualified him
for appointment.  The demand was
contained in a letter which he wrote to the respondent on October 8, 1968.  The mayor endorsed the letter favorably, but
the respondent refused to reconsider his stand. 
Hence this petition for mandamus to compel the respondent to include the
petitioner in a list of “five next ranking eligible and qualified persons.”

The petitioner’s reading of section 10 of the Police Act of 1966
is, per his own phrasings as follows:

“NO PERSON may be appointed chief of a city police agency
unless HE

“(1) holds a
bachelor’s degree from a recognized institution of learning AND has served in
the Armed Forces of the Philippines OR the National Bureau of Investigation, OR

“(2) has served as chief of police with exemplary record, OR

“(3) has served
in the police department of any city with the rank of captain or its equivalent
therein for at least three years; OR

“(4) any high
school graduate who has served as officer in the Armed Forces for at least
eight years with the rank of captain and/ or higher.”

As he has served successively as captain,
major and lieutenant colonel in the MPD since 1954, the petitioner’s insistence
is that he falls under the third class of persons qualified for appointment as
chief of a city police department.

In support of this proposition, he adverts to the policy of the
Act “to place the local police service on a professional level,”^[1]
and contends that a bachelor’s degree does not guarantee that one who possesses
it will make a good policeman, but that, on the other hand, one who, like the
petitioner, has risen from patrolman to lieutenant colonel “meets the test
of professionalism.”

Even if we concede the correctness of the petitioner’s view,
still we do not see how the requirement of a college degree as additional
qualification can run counter to the avowed policy of the Act.  On the contrary, we should think that the
requirement of such addi­tional qualification will best carry out that
policy.  The fallacy of petitioner’s
argument lies in its assumption that the choice is between one who has served
long and loyally in a city police agency and another who, not having so served,
has only a bachelor’s degree.  But that
is not the issue in this case.  The issue
rather is whether, within the meaning and intendment of the law, in addition to
service qualification, one should have educational qualification as shown by
the possession of a bachelor’s degree.

The petitioner invokes the last paragraph of section 9 of the Act
which provides:

“Persons who at the time of the approval of this Act have
rendered at least five years of satisfactory service in a provincial, city or
municipal police agency although they have not qualified in an appropriate
civil service examination are considered as civil service eligibles
for the purpose of this Act.”

In effect, he contends that if a person
who has rendered at least five years of satisfactory service in a police agency
is considered a civil service eligible, so must a person be considered
qualified even though he does not possess a bachelor’s degree.

The petitioner’s argument is fallacious in two respects.  First, it fails to distinguish between
eligibility and qualification.  For the
statute may allow the compensation of service for a person’s lack of
eligibility but not necessarily for his lack of educational qualification.  Second, section 9 governs the
appointment of members of a police agency only.  On the other hand, the appointment of chiefs
of police is the precise gravamen of section 10,
the last paragraph of which states:

“Where no civil service eligible is available, provisional
appointment may be made in accordance with Civil Service Law and rules: Provided,
that the appointee possesses the above educational qualification: Provided,
further, That in no case shall such appointment extend beyond six
months, except for a valid cause, and with the approval of the Civil Service
Commission.”

Thus, while the Act gives credit for service and allows it to
compensate for the lack of civil service eligibility in the case of a member
of a police agency, it gives no such credit for lack of civil service
eligibility in the case of a chief of police.  On the contrary, by providing that a person,
who is not a civil service eligible, may be provisionally appointed^[2]
chief of police “[p]rovided,
[t]hat the appointee possesses the above educational qualification, ” the
Act makes it unequivocal that the possession of a college degree or a high
school diploma (in addition to service) is an indispensable requisite.

It is next contended that to read section 10 as requiring a
bachelor’s degree, in addition to service either in the Armed Forces of the
Philippines or in the National Bureau of Investigation or as chief of police
with an exemplary record or as a captain in a city police department for at
least three years, would be to create an “absurd situation” in which
a person who has served for only one month in the AFP or the NBI is in law
considered the equal of another who has been a chief of police or has been a
captain in a city police agency for at least three years.  From this it is concluded that “the only
logical equivalence of these two groups (Chief of Police with exemplary record
and Police Captain for at least 3 years in a City Police Agency) is the
bachelor’s de­gree.”

Section 10, it must be admitted, does not specify in what
capacity service in the AFP or in the NBI must have been rendered, but an
admission of the existence of the ambiguity in the statute does not necessarily
compel acquiescence in the conclusion that it is only in cases where the
appointee’s service has been in the AFP or in the NBI that he must be required
to have a bachelor’s degree.  The logical
implication of the petitioner’s argument that a person who has served as
captain in a city police department for at least three years need not have a
bachelor’s degree to qualify, is that such person need not even be a high
school graduate.  If such be the case
would there still be need for a person to be at least a high school graduate
provided he has had at least eight years of service as captain in the AFP?

The truth is that, except for the ambiguity referred to (the
meaning of which is not in issue in this case), section 10 of the Act needs no
interpretation because its meaning is clear. 
That the purpose is to require both educational and service
qualifications of those seeking appointment as chief of police is evident from a
reading of the original provision of House Bill 6951 and the successive
revisions it underwent.  Thus, section 12
of House Bill 6951 (now section 10 of the Police Act of 1966) road:

“Minimum Qualification for appointment as Chief of a Police
Agency.  – No chief of a police agency
of a province or chartered city shall be appointed unless he is a member of the
Philippine Bar, or a holder of a bachelor’s degree in police administration
holder of a bachelor’s degree who served either in the Philippine Constabulary
or the police department of any city from the rank of captain or inspector,
second class, or its equivalent for at least three years shall be eligible for
appointment to the position of chief of the police agency.

“No chief of a municipal police force shall be appointed
unless he is a holder of a four-year college degree course or a holder of a
Bachelor’s degree in Police Administration or Criminology.

“Where no civil service eligible is available provisional
appointment may be made in accordance with Civil Service Law and rules,
provided the appointee possesses the above educational qualification but in no
case shall such appointment exceed beyond six months.”

It was precisely because the bill was clearly understood as
requiring both educational and service qualifications that the following
exchanges of view were made on the floor of the House of Representatives:

“MR. VELOSO (F.). 
Section 12, Minimum Qualification for Appointment, of Chief of a Police
Agency, provides that the chief of a police agency of a province or a chartered
city should be at least a member of the Philippine Bar or a holder of a
bachelor’s degree in Police Administration; and the chief of police of a
municipality should be at least a holder of a four years college degree or
holder of a bachelor’s degree in Police Administration or Criminology.

“At first blush, there is no reason why I should
object to these minimum requirements; but I find such requirements very
rigid because it would not allow a man to rise from the ranks.  Take a policeman who rose from the
ranks.  He became a corporal, a sergeant,
a police lieutenant.  Shouldn’t he be
allowed to go higher? If he merited it, he should also be appointed chief of
police of a city or municipality.

“MR. AMANTE.  During our
committee discussions, I objected to this provision of the bill because it is a
very high qualification.  However,
somebody insisted that in order to professionalize our police system and also
to attain a high standard of police efficiency, we must have a chief of police
who has a college degree.  The point
which the gentleman is now raising was brought up by one Member in the sense
that a policeman who rose from the ranks through serious hard work, even after
serving for fifteen or twenty years in the police force, cannot become chief of
police for lack of a college degree.

“The gentleman’s objection is a very good and reasonable
one.  I assure him if he bring up
during the period of amendments, I will consider it.

“MR. VELOSO (F.).  I am
glad that the Committee will accept my amendment.  My only regret, however, is that because I
made a number of proposed amendments, I will not be ready to submit them
immediately.  We should just limit
ourselves to the sponsorship this evening.”^[3]

Thus it appears that it was because of
the educational requirement contained in the bill that objections were
expressed, but while it was agreed to delete this requirement during the period
of amendment, no motion was ever presented to effect the change.^[4]

In the Senate, the Committee on Government Reorganization, to
which House Bill 6951 was referred, reported a substitute measure.^[5]
It is to this substitute bill that section 10 of the Act owes its present form
and substance.  Parenthetically, the
substitute measure gives light on the meaning of the ambiguous phrase “and
who has served either in the Armed Forces of the Philippines
or the National Bureau of Investigation.” The provision of the substitute
bill reads:

“No person may be appointed chief of a city police agency
unless he holds a bachelor’s degree and has served either in the Armed Forces
of the Philippines or the National Bureau of Investigation or police department
of any city and has held the rank of captain or its equivalent therein for at
least three years or any high school graduate who has served the police
department of a city for at least 8 years with the rank of captain and/ or
higher.”

Thus, service in the AFP or the NBI was intended to be in the
capacity of captain for at least three years.

At the behest of Senator Francisco Rodrigo, the phrase “has
served as officer in the Armed Forces” was inserted so as to make the
provision read:

“No person may be appointed chief of a city police agency
unless he holds a bachelor’s degree and has served either in the Armed Forces
of the Philippines or the National Bureau of Investigation or police department
of any city and has held the rank of captain or its equivalent therein for at
least three years or any high school graduate who has served the police
department of a city or who has served as officer in the Armed Forces for at
least 8 years with the rank of captain and/or higher.”^[6]

It is to be noted that the Rodrigo amendment was in the nature of
an addition to the phrase, “who has served the police department of a city
for at least 8 years with the rank of captain and/ or higher,” under which
the petitioner herein, who is at least a high school graduate (both parties
agree that the petitioner fi­nished the second year of the law course) could
possibly qualify.  However, somewhere in
the legislative process the phrase was dropped and only the Rodrigo amendment
was retained.

Because of the suggested possibility that the deletion was made
by mistake, the writer of this opinion personally and painstakingly read and
examined the enrolled bill in the possession of the legislative secretary of
the Office of the President,^[7]
and found that the text of section 10 of the Act is as set forth in the
beginning of this opinion.  The text of
the Act bears on page 15 thereof the signatures of President of the Senate
Arturo M. Tolentino and Speaker of the House of
Representatives Cornelio T. Villareal, and on page 16
thereof those of Eliseo M. Tenza,
Secretary of the Senate, and Inocencio E. Pareja, Secretary of the House of Re­presentatives, and of
President Ferdinand E. Marcos.  Under the
enrolled bill theory, announced in Mabanag
v. Lopez Vito^[8]
this text of the Act must be deemed as importing absolute verity and as binding
on the courts.  As the Supreme Court of
the United States
said in Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark:^[9]

“The signing by the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and, by the President of the Senate, in open session, of an enrolled bill, is
an official attestation by the two houses of such bill as one that has passed
Congress.  It is a declaration by the two
houses, through their presiding officers, to the President, that a bill, thus
attested, has received in the form, the sanction of the legislative branch of
the government, and that it is delivered to him in obedience to the
constitutional requirement that all bills which pass Congress shall be
presented to him.  And when a bill, thus
attested, receives his approval, its authentica­tion as a bill that has passed
Congress should be deemed complete and unimpeachable.  As the Pre­sident has no authority to approve
a bill not passed by Congress, an enrolled Act in the custody of the Secretary
of State, and having the official attestations of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, of the President of the Senate, and of the President of the
United States, carries, on its face, a solemn assurance by the legislative and
executive departments of the government, charged, respectively, with the duty
of enacting and executing the laws, that it was passed by Congress.  The respect due to coequal and independent
departments requires the judicial department to act upon that assurance, and to
accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner
stated; leaving the courts to determine, when the question properly arises,
whether the Act, so authenticated, is in conformity with the
Constitution.”^[10]

To proceed with the history of the statute, it appears that when
the two chambers of the legislature met in conference committee, the phrase
“has served as chief of police with exemplary record” was added,
thereby accounting for its presence in section 10 of the Act.^[11]

What, then, is the significance of this? It logically means that
– except for that vagrant phrase “who has served the police department of
a city for at least 8 years with the rank of captain and/or higher” – a
high school graduate, no matter how long he has served in a city police
department, is not qualified for appointment as chief of police.

Still it is insisted that “if a high school graduate who has
served as captain in the Armed Forces of the Philippines for eight years
irrespective of the branch of service where he served can be Chief of Police of
Manila, why not one who holds an A.A. degree, completed two years in Law
School, and served as Chief of the Detective Bureau for 14 years, holding the successive
ranks of Captain, Major and Lt. Colonel? Not to mention the fact that he was
awarded three Presidential Awards, and was given the Congressional Commendation
– the highest award ever conferred in the history of the Manila Police
Department.”

The trouble with such argument is that even if we were to concede
its soundness, still we would be hard put reading it in the law because it is
not there.  The inclusion of desirable
enlargements in the statute is addressed to the judgment of Congress and unless
such enlargements are by it accepted courts are without power to make
them.  As Mr. Justice Frankfurter put the
matter with lucidity:

“An omission at the time of enactment,
whether careless or calculated, cannot be judicially supplied however much
later wisdom may recomment the inclusion.

“The vital difference between initiating policy, often
involving a decided break with the past, and merely carrying out a formulated
policy, indicates the relatively narrow limits within which choice is fairly
open to courts and the extent to which interpreting law is inescapably making
law.”^[12]

In conclusion, we hold that, under the present state of the law,
the petitioner is neither qualified nor eligible for appointment as chief of
police of the city of Manila.  Consequently, the respondent has no
corresponding legal duty – and therefore may not be compelled by mandamus – to
certify the petitioner as qualified and eligible.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition for mandamus is denied.  No pronouncements as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Makalintal, Sanchez, Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Dizon, J., concurs in the result.

Zaldivar, J., did not take part.

^[1]
Sec. 2.

^[2] Section 24(c) of the Civil Service Act of
1959 provides: “Provisional Appointment.  – A provisional appointment may issued upon
the prior authorization of the Commissioner in accordance with the provisions
of this Act and the rules and standards promulgated in pursuance thereto to a
person who has not qualified in an appropriate examination but who otherwise
meets the requirements for appointment to a regular position in the competitive
service, whenever a vacancy occurs and the filling thereof is necessary in the
interest of the service and there is no appropriate register of eligibles at the time of appointment.”

^[3] 1 Cong. Rec. No. 64, 156-57 (1966) (emphasis
added).

^[4] See 1 Cong. Rec. No. 65, 28-36 (1966).

^[5] See Committee Report 667.

^[6]
Unpublished Journal of the Proceedings of August 25-26, 1966 of the Senate.

^[7] Of three copies of an enrolled bill signed
into law, one is kept in the Office of the President, a second one in the
Senate and a third one in the House of Representatives.  See Bernal, The Legislative Process,
27 Phil. L. J. 507, 533 (1952).

^[8] 78 Phil. 1 (1947) (overruled on other points
in Gonzales v. Commission on Elections, L-28196, Nov. 9,
1967).

^[9] 143 U. S. 647 (1891).

^[10] Id.
at 672.

^[11]
1 Cong. Rec. No. 7 (special session, Aug.
27, 1966) 45.

^[12] Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Colum. L. Rev.
52’7 534 (1947).

150
Clean
Clean

6 pt
6 pt
0
3

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}