Canonizado vs Aguirre offices is primarily a legislative function.
It is
GR No. 133132; 25 January 2000
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, “Philippine
National Police Reform and Reorganization Act of
1998”, declared that the terms of the current
Commissioners were deemed as expired upon its
effectivity.
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Secs. 4
and 8 of RA 8551. Petitioners argue that their
removal from office by virtue of Section 8 of RA
8551 violates their constitutionality guaranteed
right to security of tenure.
Public respondents insist that express declaration
in Sec.8 of RA 8551 that the terms of petitioners
offices are deemed expired discloses 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.
ISSUE:
1. W/N petitioners were removed by virtue of a
valid abolition of their office by Congress
HELD:
According to the Supreme Court, the
petitioners herein were members of the civil
service and as such they cannot be removed or
suspended from office, except for cause provided
by law. The Supreme Court granted the petition,
but only to the extent of declaring Section 8 of RA
8551 unconstitutional for being violative of the
petitioners' right to security of tenure. The removal
from office as a result of the application of such
unconstitutional provision of law and the
appointment in their stead was, therefore, null and
void. Petitioners were entitled to reinstatement and
to the payment of full backwages to be reckoned
from the date they were removed from office.
NOTES:
CREATION AND ABOLITION OF OFFICE:
REQUISITES. The creation and abolition of public
acknowledged that Congress may abolish any
office it creates without impairing the officer's
right to continue in the position held and that such
power may be exercised for various reasons, such
as the lack of funds or in the interest of economy.
However, in order for the abolition to be valid, it
must be made in good faith, not for political or
personal reasons, or in order to circumvent the
constitutional security of tenure of civil service
employees.
EFFECT. An abolition of office connotes an
intention to do away with such office wholly and
permanently, as the word "abolished" denotes.
Where one office is abolished and replaced with
another office vested with similar functions, the
abolition is a legal nullity. Thus, in U.P. Board of
Regents vs. Rasul, 200 SCRA 685 (1991), the
Court said: It is true that a valid and bona fide
abolition of an office denies to the incumbent the
right to security of tenure. [De la Llana vs. Alba,
112 SCRA 294 (1982)] However, in this case, the
renaming and restructuring of the PGH and its
component units cannot give rise to a valid and
bona fide abolition of the position of PGH
Director. This is because where the abolished o=ce
and the offices created in its place have similar
functions, the abolition lacks good faith. [Jose L.
Guerrero vs. Hon. Antonio V. Arizabal, G.R. No.
81928, June 4, 1990, 186 SCRA 108 (1990)] We
hereby apply the principle enunciated in Cesar Z.
Dario vs. Hon. Salvador M. Mison [176 SCRA 84
(1989)] that abolition which merely changes the
nomenclature of positions is invalid and does not
result in the removal of the incumbent. The above
notwithstanding, and assuming that the abolition of
the position of the PGH Director and the creation
of a UP-PGH Medical Center Director are valid,
the removal of the incumbent is still not justified
for the reason that the duties and functions of the
two positions are basically the same. . . .
This was also the Court's ruling in Guerrero vs.
Arizabal, 186 SCRA 108 (1990), wherein it
was declared that the substantial identity in the
functions between the two offices was indicia of
bad faith in the removal of petitioner pursuant to a
reorganization.
POWER OF CONTROL. Control means
"the power of an officer to alter or modify or set
aside what a subordinate officer had done in the
performance of his duties and to substitute the
judgment of the former for that of the latter." On
the other hand, to supervise is to oversee, to have
oversight of, to superintend the execution of or the
performance of a thing, or the movements or work
of a person, to inspect with authority; it is the
power or authority of an officer to see that
subordinate officers perform their duties. Thus, the
power of control necessarily encompasses the
power of supervision and adding the phrase
"operational supervision” under the powers of the
NAPOLCOM would not bring about a substantial
change in its functions so as to arrive at the
conclusion that a completely new office has been
created.

REORGANIZATION: REQUISITES.
Reorganization takes place when there is an
alteration of the existing structure of government
offices or units therein, including the lines of
control, authority and responsibility between them.
It involves a reduction of personnel, consolidation
of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of
economy or redundancy of functions. Naturally, it
may result in the loss of one's position through
removal or abolition of an office. However, for a
reorganization to be valid, it must also pass the test
of good faith, laid down in Dario vs. Mison: . . . As
a general rule, a reorganization is carried out in
"good faith" if it is for the purpose of economy or
to make bureaucracy more efficient. In that event,
no dismissal (in case of a dismissal) or separation
actually occurs because the position itself ceases to
exist. And in that case, security of tenure would not
be a Chinese wall. Be that as it may, if the
"abolition," which is nothing else but a separation
or removal, is done for political reasons or
purposely to defeat security of tenure, or otherwise
not in good faith, no valid "abolition" takes place
and whatever "abolition" is done, is void ab initio.
There is an invalid "abolition" as where there is
merely a change of nomenclature of positions, or
where claims of economy are belied by the
existence of ample funds.