Morales v.

Subido
27 SCRA 131

Digest by Kirk Yngwie Enriquez

Facts:

Petitioner Enrique Morales is the chief of the detective bureau of the Manila Police
Department and holds the rank of lieutenant colonel. Upon resignation of Brig. Gen.
Ricardo papa on March 14, 1968, petitioner was designated acting chief of police of
Manila and given a provisional appointment to the same position by the Mayor of
Manila. On September 24, 1968, respondent CSC Commissioner Abelardo Subido
approved the designation of the petitioner but rejected his appointment for failure to
meet the minimum educational and civil service eligibility requirements for the said
position. Section 10 of Police Act of 1966 (RA 4864) states:

Minimum qualification for appointment as Chief of Police Agency – No person may

be appointed chief of a city police agency unless he holds a bachelor’s degree from a
recognized institution of learning and has served either in the AFP or NBI, or has
served as chief of police with exemplary record, or has served in the police
department of any city with the rank of captain or its equivalent therein for at least 3
years, or any high school graduate who has served as officer in the Armed Forces for
at least 8 years with the rank of captain and/or higher.

Respondent certified other persons as qualified for the post and called the attention of
the mayor to Section 4 of the Decentralization Act of 1967 which requires the filing of
a vacancy within 30 days after coming into existence. In response, the petitioner in a
letter demanded that respondent include him in a list of eligible and qualified
applicants from which the mayor might appoint one as chief of police of the city. The
mayor endorsed the letter favorably, but respondent refused to reconsider, hence this
petition.

Below is the petitioner’s reading of Section 10 of the Police Act of 1966:

No person may be a chief of a city police agency unless he

Holds a bachelor’s degree from a recognized institution of learning AND has served
in the AFP OR NBI; OR
Has served as chief of police with exemplary record; OR
Has served in the police department of any city with the rank of captain or its
equivalent therein for at least 3 years; OR
Any high school graduate who has served as officer in the AFP for at least 8 years
with the rank of captain and/or higher.

Petitioner contends that since he has served as captain, major, and lieutenant colonel
in the MPD since 1954, he falls under the third class of persons qualified as chief of a
city police department.

MAIN DECISION

The Court ruled in its main decision that an applicant should have the required service
and educational qualification (bachelor’s degree) to be appointed as chief of a city
police department.
The requirement of a college degree as additional qualification is compatible with the
policy of the statute which is place the local police service in a professional level. The
last paragraph of Section 10 of the Police Act of 1966 states:

When no civil service eligible is available, provisional appointment may be made

provided that the appointee possesses the above educational qualification and that the
appointment should not extend beyond 6 months except for a valid cause approved by
the CSC.

The Act makes it unequivocal that possession of a college degree or a high school
diploma is an indispensable requirement. That the purpose is to require both
educational and service qualifications of those seeking appointment as chief of police
is evident from a reading of the original provision of HB 6951 and the successive
revisions it underwent. Section 12 of HB 6951 (now Section 10 of Police Act of 1966)
reads:

Minimum Qualification for appointment as Chief of a Police Agency – No chief of

police agency of a province or chartered city shall be appointed unless he is a member
of the Philippine Bar, or a holder of a bachelor’s degree in police administration or
holder of a bachelor’s degree who served either in the Philippine Constabulary or the
police department of any city from the rank of captain or inspector, second class, or its
equivalent for at least 3 years shall be eligible for appointment to the position of the
police agency.

In the Senate, the Committee on Government Reorganization to which HB 6951 was

referred reported a substitute measure to which Section 10 of the Police Act owes its
present form and substance. Thus, service in the AFP or the NBI was intended to be in
the capacity of captain for at least 3 years.

At the behest of Sen. Francisco Rodrigo, the phrase “has served as officer in the
Armed Forces was inserted and thus it read:

No person may be appointed chief of a city police agency unless he holds a bachelor’s
degree and has served either in the AFP or the NBI or police department of any city
and has held the rank of captain or its equivalent therein for at least 3 years or any
high school graduate who has served the police department of a city or who has
served as officer in the Armed Forces for at least 8 years with the rank of captain
and/or higher.

However, somewhere in the legislative process, the phrase was dropped and only the
Rodrigo amendment was retained. The writer, upon checking the enrolled bill, found
that the text of Section 10 of the Act is as set forth in the beginning of this opinion. It
was signed by the secretaries and presiding officers of both Houses. Under the
enrolled bill theory announced in Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, the text in the enrolled bill
must be deemed as importing absolute verity and as binding on the Courts. This
means that a high school graduate, no matter how long he has served in a city police
department, is not qualified for appointment as chief of police.

RESOLUTION

The petitioner insisted that the version of the provision as amended at the behest of
Sen. Rodrigo was the version approved by the Senate on third reading. According to
him, the House bill division deleted the entire provision and substituted what now is
Section 10 of the Police Act of 1966. It would appear that the omission, whether
deliberate or unintended, of the phrase “who has served the police department of a
city or” was made not at any stage of the legislative proceedings but only in the course
of the engrossment of the bill specifically in the proofreading thereof, and that the
change was made not by Congress but buy an employee thereof.
Issue:
WON the enrolled bill is controlling.

Ruling:

Yes.

The enrolled Act in the office of the legislative secretary of the President shows that
Section 10 is exactly as it is in the statute. The Court cannot go behind the enrolled
Act to discover what really happened. The investigation which the petitioner would
like this Court to make can be better done in Congress.

In Marshall Field v. Clark, the US SC rules that the signing of the presiding officers of
both Houses of Congress is an official attestation by the two Houses that such bill is
the one that has passed Congress.

In Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, an enrolled bill imports absolute verity and is binding on
the courts.
With respect to matters not expressly required to be entered on the journal, the
enrolled bill prevails in the event of discrepancy.