HON. RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION, COMMISSIONERS GUILLERMO P. ENRIQUEZ, JR., EDGAR DULA TORRE, FEDERICO S. COMANDANTE, ALEXIS CANONIZADO, PNP CHIEF SUPTS. AN…

Alunan versus Commission on Appointments

The Case

This is a petition filed with the Supreme Court by the National Police Commission, its Chairman, and its Commissioners, against the agents and regular employees of the former Criminal Investigation Service. The private respondents had gone to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City to prohibit the enforcement of National Police Commission Resolution Number 93-032, which classified Criminal Investigation Service agents who opted to be absorbed as non-uniformed personnel of the Philippine National Police as civilian personnel, and declared that they could no longer exercise the powers of peace officers. The case matters because it settles the fate of the old Criminal Investigation Service law after the creation of the Philippine National Police, and because it teaches the doctrine of repeal by implication through a statute that revises the whole subject matter of an earlier one.

Procedural History

The private respondents filed a complaint for prohibition and mandamus before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order against the petitioners, then a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the implementation of the Resolution. After hearing on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment granting the petition for prohibition and mandamus. It permanently enjoined the implementation of the Resolution and any plan to phase out the Criminal Investigation Service civilian operatives or to deprive them of their police functions. The petitioners then brought the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review, raising a single ground: that the trial court erred in not holding that the Resolution does not violate Republic Act Number 6975 but actually implements it.

Facts

The Constitution mandated the establishment and maintenance of one police force. To carry this out, Republic Act Number 6975 was enacted, creating the Philippine National Police. The new police force absorbed the members of the former National Police Commission, the Philippine Constabulary, and the Integrated National Police, and all three were accordingly abolished. With the abolition of the Philippine Constabulary came the abolition of its Criminal Investigation Service.

Acting under its power to administer and control the Philippine National Police, the National Police Commission issued Resolution Number 93-032. The Resolution provided that Criminal Investigation Service agents, including National Police Commission operatives, who opted to be absorbed as non-uniformed personnel of the Philippine National Police and were appointed to plantilla positions, shall be considered civilian personnel covered by civil service laws. It further provided that, not being uniformed personnel, they are not empowered to exercise the powers of peace officers, such as enforcement of laws, effecting arrest, search and seizure, and investigation of crimes. They were to be utilized mainly in purely administrative, technical, monitoring, or research work.

The private respondents, as agents and regular employees of the Criminal Investigation Service, challenged the Resolution. They argued that Republic Act Number 5750, the law governing Criminal Investigation Service agents, which granted them police powers, had not been repealed by Republic Act Number 6975, so that those absorbed into the Philippine National Police still enjoyed those powers. The trial court agreed with them and permanently enjoined the Resolution. Hence the petition before the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not Republic Act Number 5750 has been repealed by Republic Act Number 6975.
• Whether or not Resolution Number 93-032 violates Republic Act Number 6975, or instead implements it.
• Whether or not the private respondents have a vested right to the police powers granted by Republic Act Number 5750.

Applicable Provisions

Section 88 of Republic Act Number 6975, on the transfer, merger, and absorption of offices and personnel, provides:

SEC. 88. Transfer, Merger and Absorption of Offices and Personnel. - All properties, equipment and finances of the transferred and absorbed agencies, including their respective financial accountabilities, are hereby transferred to the Department. The transfer, merger and/or absorption of any government office/unit concerned shall include the functions, appropriations, funds, records, equipment, facilities, choses in action, rights, other assets and liabilities, if any, of the transferred office/unit as well as the personnel thereof, who shall, unless removed for cause and after due process, in a holdover capacity, continue to perform their respective duties and responsibilities and receive their corresponding salaries and benefits. Those personnel of the transferred, merged and/or absorbed office/unit whose positions are not included in the new position structure and staffing pattern approved by the Department or who are not reappointed shall be given preference to join the Department or any of the offices thereunder or shall be allowed to retire under existing laws, rules and regulations.

This provision bears on the case because it shows that absorbed personnel continue in a hold-over capacity only, which implies that their duties may be modified, changed, or completely removed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Republic Act Number 5750 has been repealed. Republic Act Number 6975 revised the whole police force system and substituted a new unified one in its place. A subsequent statute revising the whole subject matter of a former statute, and evidently intended as a substitute for it, operates to repeal the earlier statute. The revising statute is in effect a legislative declaration that whatever is embraced in the new statute shall prevail, and whatever is excluded therefrom is discarded. With the abolition of the Criminal Investigation Service, Republic Act Number 5750, whose sole subject matter was that service, lost its reason for existence. The Court also showed, point by point, that the new law superseded the old: the qualifications for appointment, the position of Deputy Chief, the period for complying with qualification requirements, and the police, oath, and subpoena powers are all now provided for in Republic Act Number 6975. The trial court therefore erred in requiring an express repealing clause.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Resolution does not violate Republic Act Number 6975 but implements it. The police powers themselves remain in the law; the question is who may exercise them. Only those who opted not to join the uniformed personnel are effectively denied those powers, because the Philippine National Police was envisioned as a single national organization composed entirely of uniformed personnel, governed by one set of standards and covered by its own retirement and disciplinary systems. Police powers are reserved for such uniformed personnel.

On the third issue, the Court held that the private respondents have no vested right to those powers. Under Section 88, absorbed personnel continue to perform their duties only in a hold-over capacity, which necessarily implies that those duties may be modified, changed, or completely removed.

Doctrine

A subsequent statute that revises the whole subject matter of a former statute, and is evidently intended as a substitute for it, operates to repeal the earlier statute by implication. The revising statute is a legislative declaration that whatever is embraced in the new statute shall prevail, and whatever is excluded is discarded. An express repealing clause is not required. Where the office that was the sole subject matter of a law is abolished, that law is rendered inutile and loses its reason for existence. Absorbed personnel under Section 88 of Republic Act Number 6975 continue only in a hold-over capacity, so they acquire no vested right to the duties and powers attached to their former positions.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the judgment of the trial court, and ordered a new judgment dismissing the complaint for prohibition and mandamus for lack of merit. The petitioners won.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a revising statute is a legislative declaration that whatever is embraced in the new statute shall prevail and whatever is excluded is discarded. Examiners use this case to test repeal by implication, the effect of absorption on the powers of transferred personnel, and the rule that a hold-over capacity confers no vested right.