Fernandez v. Ledesma
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Celso A. Fernandez was appointed ad interim chief of police of Basilan City and his appointment was later confirmed. He was subsequently suspended for one month following a finding of gross negligence, violation of law, and dereliction of duty. He was also charged with disobedience and oral defamation, leading to a further suspension. Although acquitted of these criminal charges, Fernandez remained suspended without formal administrative charges or investigation. Procedural History: On April 28, 1959, the Executive Secretary informed Fernandez that the President had terminated his services as chief of police and designated Cecilio Ledesma as his replacement. Ledesma's nomination was confirmed, and he assumed office. Fernandez then filed an action for quo warranto with mandamus before the Court of First Instance of Basilan City, seeking reinstatement on the grounds that his removal violated the Constitution. The trial court dismissed his complaint, upholding the President's action under Section 17 of Republic Act 288. Fernandez appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Fernandez appealed the lower court's decision, arguing that his removal from office without cause, by the President appointing a successor, violated the Constitution, citing precedents where officials with fixed terms were protected. The Supreme Court, however, affirmed the lower court's ruling. It held that the position of chief of police, as defined by Republic Act 288, did not have a fixed term and was held at the pleasure of the President, distinguishing this case from those involving officials with constitutionally or statutorily guaranteed fixed terms. The Court concluded that the President's action was a valid exercise of his discretion as provided by law.
Issue(s)
Whether the President may remove the chief of police of Basilan City at his discretion. Whether the termination of the services of the chief of police, without cause, constitutes a removal in violation of the Constitution.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, holding that the President has the authority to remove the chief of police of Basilan City at his discretion, pursuant to Section 17 of Republic Act 288. The Court ruled that the tenure of the chief of police is dependent upon the pleasure of the President and not for a fixed term, and thus, the termination of services was not a removal requiring cause.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the President may remove the chief of police of Basilan City at his discretion: The Court held that Section 17 of Republic Act 288 explicitly grants the President the power to remove at his discretion any appointive officer, with the exception of the municipal judge. The legislative intent behind this provision is to make the continuance in office of such appointive officers dependent upon the pleasure of the President. The distinction made between appointive officers in general and the municipal judge, who may be removed only according to law, underscores this intent. The absence of a fixed term of office for the chief of police further indicates that the position is held at the pleasure of the appointing power. The Court cited legal authorities defining public office as potentially enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, and previous rulings that Congress can constitutionally make the tenure of certain officials dependent upon the President's pleasure. On the issue of whether the termination of services constitutes removal in violation of the Constitution: The Court distinguished this case from those involving positions with fixed terms, such as De los Santos v. Mallare and Lacson v. Roque, which appellant invoked. In those cases, the removal was deemed unlawful because the law prescribed a fixed term. However, in the present case, the position of chief of police does not have a fixed term and is held at the pleasure of the President, as provided by Republic Act 288. Therefore, the termination of appellant's services was not a removal requiring cause, but rather an expiration of tenure dependent on the President's discretion. The Court reiterated the principle that when no fixity of tenure is provided, the pleasure of the President can be exercised in accordance with the policy laid down by Congress.
Main Doctrine
The President may remove at his discretion any appointive officer of the City of Basilan, with the exception of the municipal judge, as provided under Section 17 of Republic Act 288, as the tenure of such officers is dependent upon the pleasure of the President and not for a fixed term.