DOJ Opinion No. 017, s. 1990

DOJ OPINION NO. 017 , s. 1990 January 24, 1990 The Deputy Executive Secretary Malacaang, Manila Sir : This has reference to your request for advice on "whether the opinion of [this] Department, dated September 30, 1969, regarding the President's revisory power over decisions of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) in administrative cases against policemen, is still in full force and effect." You state that it is the NAPOLCOM's stand that by virtue of P.D. No. 580, its decisions/resolutions on administrative cases against policemen, being quasi-judicial in nature, are final and no longer subject to further review. You also state the contrary view that after the issuance of P.D. No. 765, providing for the constitution of the Integrated National Police (INP) and considering the regular members thereof as employees of the National Government, they would now come under the Presidential power of control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices. You finally state that the intention to place the NAPOLCOM under the control of the Chief Executive is made manifest by E.O. No. 1040, dated July 10, 1985. LLphil The abovecited provisions of law state: "The Adjudication Board shall perform the functions of the National Police Commission En Banc in the review and final adjudication of administrative cases of members of police forces falling under the Police Act of 1966: Provided, that in cases where the penalty imposed by the Adjudication Board is removal or dismissal from the service, the respondent may appeal the decision to the Commission En Banc for review and final disposition within fifteen (15) days from his receipt thereof; provided, further, that the Chairman, may in his discretion, designate a special appellate committee composed of three (3) members of the Commission to discharge this particular function with finality . An appeal shall not stop the decision of removal from being executory, and in the event that the respondent is exonerated on appeal, he shall be considered as having been under suspension during the pendency of the appeal." (Sec. 1, P.D. No. 580; "The National Police Commission shall henceforth be under the Office of the President of the Philippines. As may be directed by and under the control of the President of the Philippines , it shall exercise administrative control and supervision over all units of the Integrated National Police (INP) Force throughout the country." (Sec. 1, E.O. 1040; Emphasis Supplied) It is true that the subject opinion of this Department was rendered when policemen were still employees of the local government units and for which reason the said opinion argued against any revisory authority of the President over administrative disciplinary decisions involving such policemen by the NAPOLCOM (then the Police Commission) since any such reviewing authority could find legal basis only on the President's constitutional power of "general supervision over all local governments as may be provided by law", but which supervisory authority, however, is limited and does not include control over local political units (Jover vs. Borra, 49 O.G. 2765 and several other cases). A close perusal, however, of the various legislation and jurisprudence bearing on this question after the issuance of the subject opinion has convinced this Office that the said opinion has not lost its validity and relevance. To start with, the aforequoted provision of P.D. No. 580, which is actually an amended version of Section 2 of P.D. No. 12, is clear, unmistakable and unequivocal in providing for the "final adjudication of administrative cases of members of the police forces" before the Adjudication Board, and the "review and final disposition" of such cases by the NAPOLCOM en banc on appeal, where the penalty imposed is dismissal from the service. This legislative intention is reiterated in almost identical terms in P.D. No. 971 (see penultimate paragraph of Sec. 8). Moreover, it is observed that despite the integration of the various police forces throughout the country into one integrated national police organization and making this organization a part of the National Government, there has been no change in the procedure on the final disposition of administrative disciplinary cases for members of the police forces. Under R.A. No. 4964, establishing the Police Commission, the decisions of said agency were made final (Sec. 15). This was followed by P.D. No. 12 which states that the Adjudication Board established thereby, "shall perform the function of the Police Commission en banc in the review and final adjudication of administrative cases" of police personnel (Sec. 2). Thereafter, a series of legislation were promulgated providing for the establishment of the INP, namely, P.D. Nos. 421, 482, 531 and 585, which made the integrated police forces civilian components of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (Secretary of Justice Opns. No. 151, s. 1976 and No. 43, s. 1978). Thus, there was ample basis and opportunity for the legislative authority to undertake changes in the administrative disciplinary procedure for policemen, particularly in the disposition of dismissal cases against them. And yet, no such change was undertaken. On the contrary, P.D. Nos. 580 and 971 were enacted reiterating the finality of NAPOLCOM decisions in these cases. It is of no little significance that the aforesaid legislative enactments were all issued by the former President in the exercise of his lawmaking power under the former Constitution and had it been his intention, he could have easily provided for the appeal to, and/or review by, his Office of NAPOLCOM decisions. Finally, it is noted that under R.A. No. 557. appellate jurisdiction over administrative cases involving policemen was vested in the Civil Service Commission and its decisions in such cases were no longer subject to appeal to the President ( Id ., Opn. No. 288, s. 1958). This same jurisdiction was transferred to the Police Commission under R.A. 4864. In Ang-Angco vs. Castillo (9 SCRA 621), the Supreme Court ruled that the President has no appellate authority over the decisions of the Civil Service Commission in administrative cases involving officers and employees of the classified service and that the broad presidential authority of "control over executive departments, bureaus and offices" does not empower said official to disturb the findings of the Civil Service Commission in such cases since a procedure for their removal has been provided by law. Inasmuch as members of the police forces belong to the career category of the civil service (Sec. 6, P.D. 765), the Ang-Angco vs. Castillo doctrine should apply to them, meaning that the protection given to the tenure of civilian employees should likewise be enjoyed by members of the INP. prcd The fact the E.O. No. 1040, supra , provides that the NAPOLCOM shall be under the "direction and control of the Office of the President" does not sufficiently argue for the appealability of NAPOLCOM decisions in administrative cases against policemen. For one thing, the primary purpose of said EO was to transfer administrative supervision of the NAPOLCOM from the Department of National Defense to the Office of the President. For another, as the Ang-Angco case teaches, the conflict between the President's broad authority over executive departments, bureaus and offices and statutory provisions on the finality of decisions in administrative disciplinary cases involving career service employees should be reconciled in favor of upholding the security of tenure of such personnel. Such reconciliation can be achieved in this case by postulating that the "direction and control" power of the President should be limited only to NAPOLCOM decisions in cases which are not disciplinary in nature, such as recruitment of policemen or settlement of their gratuity claims. Indeed, the opinion subject herein lays down the principle that presidential authority over executive departments, bureaus and offices is comprehensive in matters which are primarily administrative in nature, but in areas involving functions which are quasi-judicial in nature, they are subject to Congressional legislation. Premises considered, it is believed that this Department's opinion dated September 30, 1969 continuous to be valid and effective. dctai Very truly yours, (SGD.) FRANKLIN M. DRILON Secretary