STAT CON – CASE #1 (UNDER SEC.

26 (1) of ARTICLE VI of the 1987 Constitution)

G.R. No. L-21505 October 24, 1963

LUCIO C. LIBARNES, petitioner, vs. THE HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AND/OR HIS
ASSISTANTS, MAYOR TOMAS FERRER OF ZAMBOANGA CITY and MAJOR MIGUEL
APOSTOL, respondents

CONCEPCION, J.:

FACTS:

Lucio Libarnes was appointed as Chief of Police of Zamboanga City. On May 1963, the New
Executive designated Major Miguel Apostol as the Acting Chief of Police of Zamboanga City. The
Mayor of the city informed Libarnes that the President has terminated his services and directed him
to turn over the responsibilities of the office to the new acting chief of police. The Mayor also
informed the members of the police force to take orders from the new chief.

Hence, Libarnes filed a quo warranto and injunction with preliminary injunction nullifying the
appointment of the new acting chief of police and to restrain him, the executive secretary and the
Mayor from preventing him in the performance of his duties. Stating therein that under Sec. 5 and
Sec. 9 of Republic Act No. 2259:

“REPUBLIC ACT No. 2259

AN ACT MAKING ELECTIVE THE OFFICES OF MAYOR, VICE-MAYOR AND

COUNCILORS IN CHARTERED CITIES, REGULATING THE ELECTION IN SUCH
CITIES AND FIXING THE SALARIES AND TENURE OF SUCH OFFICES.

xxxx

Section 5. The incumbent appointive City Mayors, Vice-Mayors and Councilors,

unless sooner removed or suspended for cause, shall continue in office until their
successors shall have been elected in the next general elections for local officials
and shall have qualified. Incumbent appointive city secretaries shall, unless sooner
removed or suspended for cause, continue in office until an elective city council or
municipal board shall have been elected and qualified; thereafter the city secretary
shall be elected by majority vote of the elective city council or municipal board. All
other city officials now appointed by the President of the Philippines may not
be removed from office except for cause. x x x

Section 9. All Acts or parts of Acts, Executive Orders, rules and regulations
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, are hereby repealed.”

Respondents disputed the argument with the provisions under Sec. 34 of the Charter
of Said City or Commonwealth Act No. 39:

“Commonwealth Act No. 39

An Act Creating the City of Zamboanga.

 SEC. 34. Appointment and removal of officials and employees—Compensation.
—The President shall appoint, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments
of the National Assembly, the Judges of the Municipal Court, the city engineer, the
city treasurer, the city assessor, the city attorney, the chief of police and the other
heads of the city departments as may be created from time to time, and he may
remove at pleasure any of the said appointive officials, except the Judges of the
Municipal Court, who may be removed only according to law.

ISSUE:

Does Republic Act No. 2259 violate Sec 26 (1) of the 1987 Constitution.

RULING:

Yes, RA. 2259 does not conform with the provisions of Sec. 26 (1) Article VI of the 1987
Constitution.

In the case of Libarnes vs. Executive Secretary, plaintiff’s complaint was anchored upon the
theory that, under Sec. 5 of the Republic Act No.2259 and the Civil Service Law (RA No. 2260).

The provision in Section 5 of Republic Act No. 2259, that "all other officials now appointed by
the President of the Philippines may not be removed from office except for cause" is a rider violative
of the constitutional injunction that "no bill which maybe enacted into law shall embrace more
than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill" which was provided in under Sec. 26
(1) Article VI of the Constitution.

“1987 Constitution,

Article VI

Section 26 (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject
which shall be expressed in the title thereof.”

Judgment is hereby rendered declaring that plaintiff Lucio C. Libarnes is still the de
jure Chief of Police of Zamboanga City, and that, as such, he is entitled to continue holding
said office and discharging the powers and duties thereof, and, consequently, enjoining the
defendants herein, as well as their subordinates or persons acting in their behalf, to refrain
from molesting the plaintiff, or otherwise interfering in the possession of said office, and in
the discharge of the powers and duties attached thereto, with costs against said
defendants. It is so ordered.