YUSOPH C. TAMANO, PETITIONER, VS. RAUL S. MANGLAPUS AND FRANKLIN S. DRILON, RESPONDENTS.

By this petition for mandamus, the petitioner seeks to compel
the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Executive Secretary, Office of the
President of the Philippines, to reinstate him as Foreign Service Officer II
and to order the payment of all the back salaries and benefits accruing to him
from March 1, 1987 to date.

On September 10, 1986, the petitioner, Yusoph C. Tamano, was
appointed Foreign Service Officer II and Consul by then President Corazon C.
Aquino, with a salary of P47,856 per annum. Upon receipt of the appointment, Tamano took his oath of office before
Honorable Mamintal A.J. Tamano, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. A month later, he completed the Consular
Officer Course conducted by the Foreign Service Institute and began receiving
his salary as FSO II on September 12, 1986. Identification Card No. TYC007 certifying Tamano’s employment in the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs as Foreign Service Officer was issued to him on
November 24, 1986. He thereafter caused
calling cards to be printed which read: (1) Yusoph C. Tamano, Chief Islamic Division, Office of the Middle
East and African Affairs; (2) Consul and President, Filipino-Muslim Foreign
Service Personnel Association and holding office at Rm. 532 PICC Bldg., Pasay
City; (3) Yusoph Tamano, Second Secretary of Consul, Philippine Embassy, 5 Ibn el
Walid Street, Dokki, Cairo; and (4) Yusoph C. Tamano, Director, Office of
Middle East and African States, Department of Foreign Affairs, PICC Bldg., CCP
Complex, Manila.

On or about March 1, 1987, before Tamano’s appointment was
submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation, President Corazon
C. Aquino, in a communication addressed to Secretary of Foreign Affairs
Salvador H. Laurel, revoked Tamano’s appointment “effective ab initio
owing to the absence of appropriate items” (p. 21, Rollo). Tamano sought reconsideration of the
President’s decision, but to no avail.

On November 21, 1988, Tamano filed a request for rectification
and reconsideration of his revoked FSO II appointment by granting him an FSO IV
appointment, the beginning level, which Tamano alleged was given to two other
appointees similarly situated, namely Francisco Sales and Pendosina
Lomondot. That request was likewise
denied by the Board of Foreign Service Administration.

Later, Ambassador Rosalinda Tirona recommended in a memorandum
addressed to the new Foreign Affairs Secretary Raul Manglapus, that the
revocation of Tamano’s appointment be lifted and that he be appointed instead
to the beginning level of Foreign Service Officer IV. After a review of the case and others similarly situated,
Secretary Raul Manglapus concurred with the view that “the appointees
[including Tamano] appear to have all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications to become competent officers of the Philippine foreign
service. Taking into account the
pertinent provisions of Executive Order No. 523, Section 3 (lateral entry),”
Secretary Manglapus “recommended that the revocation of their appointments be
lifted and that the President’s decision to appoint the above-mentioned
individuals to their respective positions be given due course.” (Memorandum of
Secretary Manglapus dated September 7, 1988, p. 26, Rollo.)

On November 26, 1991, Tamano filed this suit for mandamus,
praying that the Court issue an order directing respondents Foreign Affairs Secretary
and the Executive Secretary to reinstate him to his position and pay all his
back salaries plus other benefits accruing to him from March 1, 1987 to date.

Is the petitioner entitled to the writ of mandamus which
he prays for? Does he have a clear
legal right to be reinstated as Foreign Service Officer II?

Republic Act 708, as amended, prescribes the manner and
qualifications for the appointment of Foreign Service Officers composing the “career
service” (Astraquillo vs. Manglapus, 190 SCRA 280, citing the Opinion No. 82,
S. 1954 of the Department of Justice). Title III, Part B, Section 1 of the law provides:

“Section 1 Career Service Corps –

“(a) There shall be a career service corps for
the Department and the Foreign Service to be composed of Foreign Affairs [now
Service] Officers appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the
Secretary and with the consent of the Commission on Appointments.

“(b) No person may be a Foreign Affairs [Service]
Officer unless he is a Filipino citizen and is at least twenty-five years old
at the time of his appointment.

“(c) No person shall
be eligible for appointment as a Foreign Affairs [Service] Officer unless
he has passed such competitive examinations as the Board of Foreign Service
Examiners may
prescribe to
determine his
fitness and
aptitude for
the work
of the service and
has demonstrated
his loyalty
to the Government of
the Republic
of the Philippines and
his attachment
to the principles of
the Constitution. x x x.” (Underscoring ours.)

The record shows that the petitioner was appointed FSO II and
Consul without having taken – therefore, without having passed – the foreign
service examination. Neither was his
appointment confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. These are indispensable requirements for a
Foreign Service Officer to be embraced in the Career Service Corps. He, therefore, belonged to the non-career
service composed of those who have been appointed, not on the basis of the
usual test of merit and fitness, but subject to the appointing power’s
pleasure, limited to the duration of a particular period or project for which
the employment was made. Section 6, PD
807 provides:

“SECTION 6. The non-Career
Service shall be characterized by (1) entrance on bases other than those of the
usual tests of merit and fitness utilized for the career service; and (2)
tenure which is limited to a period specified by law, or which is coterminous
with that of the appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or which is
limited to the duration of a particular project for which purpose employment
was made.”

As a political appointee or non-career
officer, he served at the pleasure of the President of the Philippines
(Astraquillo vs. Manglapus, 190 SCRA 280, 293). He has no clear right to the office to which he seeks to be
reinstated nor does the appointing authority have a clear duty to appoint or
reinstate him thereto.

“Mandamus is the proper remedy if it could be shown that
there was neglect on the part of a tribunal in the performance of an act, which
specifically the law enjoins as a duty or an unlawful exclusion of a party from
the use and enjoyment of a right to which he is entitled. According to former Chief Justice Moran,
‘only specific legal rights may be enforced if they are clear and certain. If the legal rights of the petitioner are
not well-defined, clear, and certain, the petition must be dismissed.’”
(Orencia vs. Enrile, 55 SCRA 580.)

The writ of mandamus is not available to control
discretion. It may issue to compel the
exercise of discretion but not to control it. Mandamus can require action only but not specific action where
the act sought to be performed involves the exercise of discretion (Association
of Small Landowners in the Philippines vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175
SCRA 343, citing Lamb vs. Phipps, 22 Phil. 456).

The present action for mandamus is ill-advised for the act
sought to be performed (the lifting of the President’s revocation of
petitioner’s appointment as FSO II and his reinstatement to that position) is
not ministerial but involves a high degree of discretion the exercise of which
this Court may not interfere with in view of the system of separation of powers
under which the three (3) great departments of our Republic operate.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, and Melo, JJ., concur.

Campos, Jr., J., no part.