Statutory Construction

CASE TITLE LIBARNES VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF ZAMBOANGA CITY

G. R NO / SCRA L-21505 DATE OF DECISION October 24, 1963
PONENTE Concepcion, J
LEGAL BASIS Sec 26 par 1 Art VI
DOCTRINE/S Every bill passed by Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall
be expressed in the title thereof
PETITIONER Lucio C. Libarnes
RESPONDENT Hon. Executive Secretary and/or his assistants, Mayor Tomas Ferrer of
Zamboanga City and Miguel Apostol

FACTS:
Lucio C. Libarnes was appointed by the President for the position of Chief of Police of Zamboanga City.
Libarnes assumed the aforementioned office on March 11, 1959 and continued discharging the duties
of the said office. On May 16, 1963, the new executive designated defendant Miguel Apostol Acting
Chief of Police of Zamboanga. Thereafter, Tomas Ferrer, City Mayor of Zamboanga transmitted to
Libarnes a letter of Acting Assistant Executive Secretary Office of the President, Malacañang dated May
16, 1963, informing Libarnes that “under the provisions of Sec.34 of Charter of Zamboanga City as
amended, the President “ had terminated his” services as Chief of Police of said City effective
immediately and designated Miguel Apostol “ in his stead and stating that it would “be appreciated if”
he could turn over the office in question to Major Apostol “upon receipt” of the said communications.
Mayor Ferrer added further through a memorandum, that all members of the police force shall now
take order from the new Chief of Police. Libarnes initiated the action to nullify the aforementioned
designation of Apostol and the directives of Mayor Ferrer on the ground that under the provisions of
Sec 5 of RA 2259 and of the Civil Service Law (RA 2260) he is entitled to hold said office until removed
for cause, which is not claimed to exist in his case and “after the due process” which he asserts has
been denied from him. On the other hand, the defendant argued that the provision in Sec 5 of RA 2259
to effect that “ all other officials now appointed by the President of Philippines may not remove from
office except for cause “is a rider violative of the constitutional injunction that “no bill which may be
enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Sec 5 of R.A No 2259 violates the constitutional mandate that no bill may be enacted
into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in its title

HELD:
NO. as stated in the R.A 2259, the purpose thereof is to establish “uniformity in the number of city
officials in the manner in which they are to chosen, in the extent of their powers, duties and functions
“as well as the equality int the rights and privileges enjoyed by the residents of the said cities,
particularly the rights to choose the officials who should be at the helm of their respective City
governments”. Obviously, the matter of the conditions under which local officials appointed by the
President may be removed from office not to germane to such purpose but also forms as essential part
thereof. Thus, Sec. 5 of R.A 2260 is constitutional and valid, that as Chief of Police of Zamboanga City
plaintiff Libarnes is entitled to the benefit of the aforementioned provision. Pursuant to Sec. 32 of R.A
2260, he may be removed only “for cause as provided by law and after due process”. Judgment hereby
declaring that the plaintiff Lucio C. Libarnes is still the de jure (legal) Chief of Police of Zamboanga and
he is entitled to continue holding said office and discharging the powers and duties. The defendants as
well as their subordinates/persons in their behalf to refrain from molesting the plaintiff or otherwise
interfering in the possession of the said office, and in the discharge of the powers and duties attached
with costs against said defendants.