Libarnes v. Executive Secretary
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Lucio C. Libarnes was nominated by the President as Chief of Police of Zamboanga City, confirmed by the Appointments Committee, and assumed office on March 11, 1959. On May 16, 1963, the Executive designated Major Miguel Apostol as Acting Chief of Police. On May 23, 1963, the City Mayor informed Libarnes that his services were terminated effective immediately under Section 34 of the Zamboanga City Charter and requested him to turn over the office to Apostol. Libarnes refused to relinquish his office and property responsibility. Procedural History: Libarnes initiated the present action for quo warranto and injunction to nullify Apostol's designation and restrain respondents from interfering with his possession of the office. The Petition: Libarnes contended that under Republic Act No. 2259 and the Civil Service Law (Republic Act No. 2260), he was entitled to hold office until removed for cause and after due process, which he asserted were denied him. Respondents argued that Libarnes held office at the pleasure of the President, pursuant to Section 34 of Commonwealth Act No. 39, and that this provision was not amended by the Republic Acts.
Issue(s)
Whether Section 34 of Commonwealth Act No. 39, allowing the President to remove the Chief of Police of Zamboanga City at pleasure, has been repealed or amended by Republic Act No. 2259. Whether the provision in Section 5 of Republic Act No. 2259, stating that 'all other city officials now appointed by the President of the Philippines may not be removed from office except for cause,' is constitutional. Whether petitioner Lucio C. Libarnes, as Chief of Police of Zamboanga City, can be removed from office except for cause and after due process.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner Lucio C. Libarnes. It declared that he is still the de jure Chief of Police of Zamboanga City and is entitled to continue holding the office. The Court enjoined the respondents from molesting or interfering with his possession and discharge of duties.
Ratio Decidendi
On the repeal of Section 34 of Commonwealth Act No. 39 by Republic Act No. 2259: The Court held that Section 34 of Commonwealth Act No. 39 is inconsistent with Section 5 of Republic Act No. 2259. Republic Act No. 2259 expressly repeals all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with its provisions. Section 5 of Republic Act No. 2259 clearly states that "all other city officials now appointed by the President of the Philippines may not be removed from office except for cause." This provision directly contradicts the power granted under Commonwealth Act No. 39 to remove the Chief of Police at pleasure. The legislative intent, as evidenced by discussions on the floor of Congress and the explanatory note to Senate Bill No. 2 (which became Republic Act No. 2259), was to establish uniformity and security of tenure for local officials, including those appointed by the President, by requiring cause for removal. The Court noted that Zamboanga City was considered in the drafting of Republic Act No. 2259, and it was not among the cities expressly excepted from its operation. On the constitutionality of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 2259: The Court found the contention that the provision is a rider violating the "one subject" rule of the Constitution to be untenable. The title of Republic Act No. 2259 is "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 OFFICERS." The Court explained that the purpose of the law, as stated in its explanatory note, was to establish uniformity in city officials' selection, powers, duties, and functions, and to ensure equality in rights and privileges, particularly the right to choose city government leaders. The matter of removal conditions for officials appointed by the President is germane to this purpose and forms an essential part thereof. Furthermore, the provision was debated on the floor of Congress, indicating that legislators were apprised of its nature and scope, thus satisfying the constitutional requirement. On the security of tenure of the Chief of Police: The Court affirmed that the Chief of Police of Zamboanga City is a member of the civil service system, as provided in Section 5 of Republic Act No. 2260. Consequently, he cannot be removed or suspended except for cause, as provided by law and after due process, pursuant to Section 33 of Republic Act No. 2260. The attempt to terminate Libarnes' services was considered a removal from office, which, under the prevailing law (Republic Act No. 2259), requires cause and due process. The Court distinguished this case from Fernandez vs. Ledesma because the termination in that case occurred prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 2259, whereas Libarnes' termination occurred after its effective date. The Court concluded that Libarnes was entitled to the benefits of Republic Act No. 2259 and could not be removed at the pleasure of the Executive.
Main Doctrine
The provisions of Republic Act No. 2259, particularly Section 5 thereof, which states that 'all other city officials now appointed by the President of the Philippines may not be removed from office except for cause,' prevail over Section 34 of Commonwealth Act No. 39, which allowed the President to remove the Chief of Police of Zamboanga City at pleasure. This is because Republic Act No. 2259 expressly repeals inconsistent provisions of special laws, and the Chief of Police, being part of the civil service, is entitled to security of tenure and removal only for cause and after due process.