Cabarrus v. Secretary of National Defense
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Col. Jesus G. Cabarrus, Jr., a reserve officer in the Philippine Air Force, was called to active service in the AFP Reserve Command in 2000 at the age of 60. In 2005, the AFP Reserve Command sought a legal opinion on whether Col. Cabarrus could continue his service beyond his 65th birthday. The Judge Advocate General Office (JAGO) opined negatively, citing Section 13(3) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7077. Procedural History: Despite reaching 65 in March 2005, Col. Cabarrus remained in service. In November 2005, a circular announced the retirement of reservists who reached 65, leading to his relief from his post effective December 11, 2005. Believing he was singled out, Col. Cabarrus protested to his superiors, but received no reply. He then filed a petition for declaratory relief with the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the construction of Section 13(3) of R.A. 7077. The RTC dismissed his petition for lack of merit. The Petition: Col. Cabarrus elevated the case to the Supreme Court, seeking a review of the RTC's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether or not Col. Cabarrus, a reservist called to serve in one of the support commands of the AFP, may be regarded as retired under Section 13(3) of R.A. 7077 after he reached the age of 65. Whether Col. Cabarrus's active duty tour exceeded the permissible period under R.A. 7077.
Ruling
The Court DENIED the petition for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Col. Cabarrus may be regarded as retired under Section 13(3) of R.A. 7077 after he reached the age of 65: The Court held that Section 13(3) of R.A. 7077, which states that "sixty-five (65) years shall be considered as the retirement age," pertains to the composition of the Retired Reserve Unit. This unit is composed of citizen soldiers who have qualified for retirement through length of service, old age, or disability. The provision does not prescribe the retirement age for reservists who are called to active service in the regular armed forces. Furthermore, Section 13 itself is not about the retirement of reservists called to active duty but rather creates a classification of the Reserve Force units: Ready Reserve, Standby Reserve, and Retired Reserve. These units have a limited and contingent mission. The AFP did not post Col. Cabarrus to any of these three stand-by reserve units; instead, he was posted in a support command, the AFP Reserve Command, as Group Commander of its Public Affairs Service. Therefore, Section 13 does not apply to his situation. On whether Col. Cabarrus's active duty tour exceeded the permissible period under R.A. 7077: The Court found that the only possible opportunity for reservists to be called to active duty and hold commands in the regular armed forces is for "training" as provided in Section 53 of R.A. 7077. This section states that reserve officers in inactive status shall be called to active duty for a period not exceeding two (2) years without extension. Since Col. Cabarrus had already exceeded the two-year service allowed for reservists called to active duty tours, he could not complain of being prematurely removed from active or regular service. His continued service beyond the two-year limit was not mandated by law.
Main Doctrine
Section 13(3) of Republic Act No. 7077, which refers to the composition of the Retired Reserve, does not prescribe the retirement age for reservists who are called to active service in the regular armed forces. Such reservists are governed by Section 53 of the same Act, which limits their active duty tour for training to two years.