GEN. RENATO DE VILLA, BRIG. GEN. DOMINGO RIO, LT. COL. MIGUEL CORONAL, AND P/MAJ. NICOLAS TORRES, PETITIONERS, VS. THE CITY OF BACOLOD AND LT. COL. HERMAN S. PLOTENA, RESPONDENTS.

On or about 12 September 1987, petitioner Lt. Gen. Renato de Villa, then Director General of the Integrated
National Police (INP), relieved respondent Lt. Col. Herman S. Ploteña as Bacolod City INP
Station Commander and assigned him to the PC Provincial Headquarters in Bacolod City.

The city of Bacolod
filed with the RTC of Bacolod a complaint for
declaratory relief and/or injunction with prayer for issuance of a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction to declare the relief of Ploteña
as invalid and illegal.

Said complaint was later amended to implead
Ploteña as an unwilling co-plaintiff (defendant) who
filed an answer with crossclaim praying for dismissal
of the complaint against him but asked for reinstatement with full backwages and without loss of seniority rights allegedly
because he has security of tenure as a civil servant. Defendants therein
(herein petitioners) claimed that Gen. de Villa, as Director General of the
INP, has the power and authority under PD 765, PD 1162 and EO 1012 to replace Ploteña.  Thru the
Solicitor General, a motion to dismiss was filed.  After hearing on the motion to dismiss, the
entire case was, by agreement of the parties, submitted for resolution.

Since the replacement of Ploteña was a fait
accompli, the RTC treated the case as an ordinary civil action pursuant
to Sec. 6, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, and held on 12 November 1987 that Ploteña was summarily replaced without observance of due
process, violative of Executive Order 1012 as amended
by Executive Order 1027 and the 1987 Constitution requiring as an essential
condition for relief a prior recommendation of, or consultation with the local
chief executive, in the instant case, the City Mayor of Bacolod.

Not satisfied with the decision of the RTC, petitioners have come
to this Court.  Respondent Ploteña in a manifestation dated 31 May 1988 refrained from filing any comment and
opted to adopt whatever favorable comment the respondent city would file.  After two (2) show cause resolutions from
this Court and motions for extension, the city of Bacolod
finally filed its one (1) page comment praying for the dismissal of the
petition as moot and academic, it being satisfied with the performance of the
new station commander Lt. Col. Nicolas Torres. Ploteña
filed a manifestation to the effect that he will abide by the RTC decision
while the Office of the Solicitor General prays for the allowance of the
petition in order to reverse the RTC decision.

We grant the petition because the city’s change of heart is not a
permanent solution to the issues it has raised.

It is worth noting that Section 6 of PD 765^[1]
includes regular members of the INP within the career service category of the
Civil Service.  Section 7 of the decree
also provides:

“SEC. 7.  Authority of
the President of the Philippines
over the Integrated National Police. – 
In the exercise of its power to maintain peace, law, order and public
safety, the Integrated National Police shall be subject, to the command and
general supervision of the President of the Philippines and shall function
directly under the Department of National Defense.”

Section 9 provides:

“Transfer of Administrative Supervision and Control. – The
power of administrative super­vision and control by city and municipal
governments over their respective local police forces, jails and fire
departments as defined under existing laws and charters, notwithstanding the
transition periods provided in the abovementioned Decrees on integration, shall
be transferred to, and exercised by the Chief of Constabulary as
Director-General of the Integrated National Police; x x
x.”^[2]
(underscoring supplied)

The power of control, undefined in PD 765, has been
jurisprudentially defined (with reference to the president’s power of control)
as the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a
subordinate officer has done in the performance of his duties and to substitute
the judgment of the former for that of the latter.^[3]

In Ang-Angco vs. Castillo, et
al.  (L-17169, 30 November 1963)
control was defined as follows:

“That meaning is also the meaning given to the word ‘control’
as used in administrative law.  Thus, the
Department Head pursuant to Section 79(c) is given direct control of all
bureaus and offices under his department by virtue of which he may ‘repeal or
modify decisions of the chiefs of said bureaus or offices’ and under Section 74
of the same Code, the President’s control over the executive department only
refers to matters of general policy.  x x x.”

On the other hand, the power of supervision means the power of a
superior officer to see to it that subordinates perform their functions
according to law.^[4]

General supervision, operational supervision and direction are
separately defined under PD 1162, Section 1 as follows:

“d. General
Supervision.  It is the power to see
to it that the units or elements of the Integrated National Police perform
their duties properly according to existing laws and the rules, regulations and
policies promulgated by competent authority in order that the overall mission
of the Integrated National Police in maintaining law and order insuring public
safety n any province, city or municipality shall be effectively achieved.  x x x.

e. Operational
Supervision and Direction.  It is the
power to see to it that the units or elements of the Integrated National Police
perform their duties properly according to existing laws and the rules,
regulations and policies promulgated by competent authority, and the power to
employ or deploy such units or elements, in coordination with the Provincial or
District Police Superintendent, Station Commander or Officer-in-Charge to
insure public safety and the effective maintenance of peace and order within
the locality.”

In  addition, the last
paragraph of Section 1, Executive Order 1012^[5] provides:

“x x x                                                                                                 x x x                                                                                              x x x

In accordance with Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1162, the
Provincial Governors, City Mayors and Municipal Mayors shall have the power to
exercise general supervision over units and elements of the INP stationed or assigned
in their respective jurisdictions, and shall accordingly exercise the powers
and authorities provided for in Section 1(d) of said Presidential Decree No.
1162.”

Executive Orders 1012 and 1027 did not remove adminis­trative
supervision and control over police units from the INP chief, what is given to
local executives over local police units is general and, at most, operational
supervision and direction.

Administrative supervision and control is not the same as general
or operational supervision, and direction; but the RTC ruling appears to
interchange the two (2) things.

Section 4 of Executive Order 1027^[6]
which is relied upon by the Bacolod RTC states:

“SEC. 4.  Once the
reassignments herein required are in place, no further reassignment or
detail of policemen outside their respective towns or cities of residence shall
be made with­out the approval of the Municipal or City Mayor concerned.  No appointment of new policemen in any
municipality or city shall be made, except upon the recommendation of the
Municipal or City Mayor therein.  The
new appointees shall, as a general rule, be residents of the city or munici­pality
to where they are assigned or stationed. 
(Underscoring supplied)”

The above section speaks of no further reassignment or
detail of policemen outside their respective
towns or cities of residence without the
approval of the Municipal or City Mayor
concerned.  The Office of the
Solicitor General contends that said directive refers only to ordinary police­men
and not to officers and the approval of the local chief executive is necessary
only if the reassignment or detail of the policemen is outside of the city or
municipality which happens to be his residence. 
But, even if the section were to apply to police officers, the situation
contemplated in the section does not exist in the case at bar for Ploteña has been re-assigned to the PC Provincial
Headquarters also in Bacolod
City.

PD 531^[7]
which integrated the police departments of Negros
Occidental provides in Section 6 thereof that in case of conflict between the
exercise of administrative control and supervision on the one hand and operational
control, direction and supervision on the other hand, the
latter shall prevail.  Be that as it may,
the operative word here is control, i.e. who has control?  The local executives have general and
operational supervision over local police units, but no power of administrative
supervision or control over them; hence, absence of recommendation from
the local chief executive does not invalidate the replacement of a Station
Commander made by the INP Director General.

At best, the participation of the local chief executive is
recommendatory but the power to relieve or reassign a city INP Station
Commander is lodged with the INP Director General under existing laws.

To conclude, as the Bacolod RTC has
done, that Ploteñas‘ replacement, transfer or
reassignment may only be done upon approval of the local chief executive,
defies organizational interests.  If the RTC’s position were correct, a deadlock can ensue; an
intransigent local executive would be in a position to nullify the power of
administrative supervision and control vested by law in the PC Chief/INP
Director General.

The undisputed assertion of the Office of the Solicitor General
is that the decision to relieve Ploteña was reached
after consultations with the Regional Directors and Police Superintendents
relative to his performance in the face of the worsening peace and order and
insurgency situation in Bacolod
City.  The PC/INP Commander’s power of control
encompasses such a transfer.  There is
thus no need to discuss further the issue of due process.

Moreover, Executive Order 1040^[8]
directly placed the National Police Commission under the office of the
President.  The Commission exercises
administrative control and supervision over all units of the INP force
throughout the country.  Questions
therefore of propriety of a transfer or relief of policemen have to be threshed
out before said body whose decisions are appealable to
the office of the President.  Were it not
for the legal issue presented, the petition before the lower court would have
been premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

The Supreme Court interprets the law, it does not shirk from this
duty but takes this opportunity to bring to the attention of our lawmakers the
danger of numerous laws/issuances covering the same subject matter, as demons­trated
in this case.  Careful drafting and
compilation in one comprehensive/concise piece of legislation can eliminate
unnecessary contradictions and confusing interpretations by those tasked to
execute such laws.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.  The challenged RTC decision is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Paras, J., on leave.

^[1]
Dated 8 August 1975

^[2]
Also Section 7 PD 1162, dated 8 June
1977

^[3] Mondano vs. Silvosa, 97
Phil. 143, 148; Tuazon vs. Magallanes,
Co. Inc., G.R. No.L-27811, October 17, 1967; Lacson vs.
Romero, 84 Phil. 740, 759

^[4] Bernas, Joaquin G. The (Revised) 1973 Philippine
Constitution Notes and Cases, Part. I, 1983 Edition, p. 474

^[5]
Dated 22 March 1985

^[6]
Dated 14 May 1985

^[7] 8 August 1974

^[8]
Dated 10 July 1985