CANONIZADO VS.

AGUIRRE
G.R. 133132, 25 January 2000
323 SCRA 312

CASE: Petition to declare RA 8851 unconstitutional.

Gonzaga-Reyes, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioners were duly appointed Commissioners of the National Police Commission

(NAPOLCOM) created by virtue of RA 6975. Upon the passing of the amendatory
law, RA 8851 a.k.a "Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization Act of
1998," it declared that the terms of the current Commissioners were deemed as
expired upon its effectivity.

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of sections 4 and 8 of RA 8551. Petitioners

argue that their removal from office by virtue of section 8 of RA 8551 violates their
constitutionally guaranteed right to security of tenure.

Public respondents insist that the express declaration in section 8 of RA 8551 that
the terms of petitioners offices are deemed expired discloses the legislative intent to
impliedly abolish the NAPOLCOM created under RA 6975 pursuant to a bona fide
reorganization. Petitioners posit the theory that the abolition of petitioners offices
was a result of a reorganization of the NAPOLCOM allegedly effected by RA
8551.[8]

ISSUES:

1. WHETHER OR NOT petitioners were removed by virtue of a valid abolition

of their office by Congress.

2. WHETHER OR NOT sections 4 and 8 are unconstitutional.

HELD:

NO. Petitioners were not removed by virtue of a valid abolition of their office by
Congress. First of all, RA 8551 did not expressly abolish petitioners positions.
Public respondents would have this Court believe that RA 8551 reorganized the
NAPOLCOM resulting in the abolition of petitioners offices. We hold that there has
been absolutely no attempt by Congress to effect such a reorganizationNo bona
fide reorganization of the NAPOLCOM having been mandated by Congress, RA
8551, insofar as it declares the terms of office of the incumbent Commissioners,
petitioners herein, as expired and resulting in their removal from office, removes
civil service employees from office without legal cause and must therefore be struck
down for being constitutionally infirm.

YES. In the dispositive portion of the decision, the Court granted the petition but
only to the extent of declaring section 8 of RA 8551 unconstitutional for being
in violation of the petitioners right to security of tenure. The removal from office
of petitioners as a result of the application of such unconstitutional provision of law
and the appointment of new Commissioners in their stead is therefore null and void.

PETITION GRANTED. PETITIONERS ARE REINSTATED.

 CANONIZADO VS. AGUIRRE
G.R. 133132, 15 February 2001

CASE: Respondents Motion for Reconsideration of the 25 January 2000

Decision.

Gonzaga-Reyes, J.:

FACTS:

In 25 January 2000, the Supreme Court declared section 8 of RA 8551 to be

unconstitutional for violating the petitioners constitutionally mandated right to
security of tenure.

Respondents, however, sought the reconsideration of the 25 January 2000 Decision.

They argue that since petitioner Canonizado was appointed by President Estrada as
Inspector General of the Internal Affairs Service (IAS) of the PNP, by accepting
such appointment, Canonizado abandoned his claim for reinstatement to the
NAPOLCOM. This is because they contend that holding both offices are
incompatible.

Respondents also raise an issue on the Decisions execution. They cite the fact that
because there are three petitioners who were ordered reinstated and four persons
currently acting as NAPOLCOM commissioners, namely Romeo L. Cairme, Jose
Percival L. Adiong, Leo S. Magahum and Cleofe M. Factoran, it is unclear who of
the current commissioners will be replaced by petitioners. Adiongs faces a peculiar
situation: it is unclear whether the latter should also be entitled to reinstatement as a
result of the assailed decision. Adiong, on his own behalf, filed a Motion for
Clarification with this Court contending that, if the Court should uphold the
declaration of nullity of section 8 of RA 8551, then he is also entitled to
reinstatement to the NAPOLCOM pursuant to his appointment under RA 6975.

Respondents insist that the present case is similar to a quo warranto proceeding since
petitioners prayed for the removal of the incumbent commissioners and for their
reinstatement. Therefore, they claim that Magahum and Factoran should have been
impleaded as respondents and given the opportunity to defend their positions

Lastly, respondents contend that the re-appointment of petitioners violates section

16 of RA 6975.
ISSUES:

1. WHETHER OR NOT Canonizado abandoned his claim for reinstatement to

the NAPOLCOM on the event of his appointment and acceptance of the
position of Inspector General.
2. WHETHER OR NOT whether Adiong should be reinstated as a result of the
25 January 2000 decision.
3. WHETHER OR NOT the present case is a quo warranto proceeding.
4. WHETHER OR NOT the re-appointment of petitioners violates section 16 of
RA 6975.

HELD:

NO. The Court reiterated that holding both the offices of IAS and NAPOLCOM is
incompatible. However, the rule on incompatibility of duties will not apply to the
case at bar because at no point did Canonizado discharge the functions of the two
offices simultaneously. Canonizado was forced out of his first office by the
enactment of section 8 of RA 8551. Thus, when Canonizado was appointed as
Inspector General on 30 June 1998, he had ceased to discharge his official functions
as NAPOLCOM Commissioner.

YES. Adiongs appointment on 11 March 1998 for a term of two years, pursuant to
section 8 of RA 8551, is null and void. However, he should now be permitted to
enjoy the remainder of his term under RA 6975. Therefore, based on our foregoing
disquisition, there should no longer be any doubt as to the proper execution of our
25 January 2000 decision all the Commissioners appointed under RA 8551
should be removed from office, in order to give way to the reinstatement of
petitioners and respondent Adiong.

NO. Firstly, the petition filed before the court was to assail the constitutionality of
sections 4 and 8 of RA 8551. The inevitable consequence of this Courts declaration
that section 8 of said law is unconstitutional is the removal of Adiong, Cairme,
Magahum and Factoran from the NAPOLCOM and the reinstatement thereto of
petitioners, including Adiong, although under his original appointment under RA
6975. Secondly, [t]here being no vacancy created in the first place in the office of
the NAPOLCOM, the appointments of Magahum, Factoran, Cairme and Adiong
pursuant to RA 8551 are legal nullities, which cannot be the source of any rights.
NO. Section 16 of RA 6975 provides: Term of Office. The four (4) regular and full-
time Commissioners shall be appointed by the President upon the recommendation
of the Secretary. Of the first four (4) commissioners to be appointed, two (2)
commissioners shall serve for six (6) years and the two (2) other commissioners for
four (4) years. All subsequent appointments shall be for a period of six (6) years
each, without reappointment or extension. But since, respondents did not raise this
issue in the comment to the petition, they are now estopped from doing so in this
late stage. Likewise, the validity of the appointments under RA 6975 was never the
issue in this case.

MOTION DISMISSED. ADIONG AND OTHER PETITIONERS ARE

REINSTATED.