Morales Vs Subido

G. R.
L- 29658
Enrique V. Morales (Petitioner)
Vs
Abelardo Subido (Respondent)
A petition was filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus compelling the respondent Commissioner of
Civil Service to include the petitioner in a list of eligible and qualified applicants from which the mayor of
the City of Manila might choose the appointee who will fill the vacant position of Chief of Police of the
City of Manila.
FACTS:
 The petitioner Enrique V. Morales is the chief of the detective bureau of the Manila Police
Department and holds the rank of lieutenant colonel. He began his career in 1934 as patrolman
and gradually rose to his present position. The petitioner was designated acting chief of police of
Manila and, at the same time, given a provisional appointment to the same position by the mayor
of Manila.
 The respondent Commissioner of Civil Service 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." He invoked Section 10 of R.A. 4864: The
Police Act of 1966 stating:
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 Armed Forces of the Philippines or the National Bureau of Investigation, 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 three years; or any high school graduate who has
served as officer in the Armed Forces for at least eight years with the rank of captain and/or higher.
 The petitioner contended that his service alone as captain for more than three years in the
Manila Police Department qualified him for appointment.
ISSUE:
WON the petitioner is qualified to the appointment and is entitled to seek relief of the issuance of a writ
of mandamus under R.A. 4864 even in the absence of a Bachelor’s Degree
No. The petitioner is neither qualified for the appointment nor for the issuance of a writ of mandamus.
Section 10 of the Act needs no interpretation because its meaning is clear. That the purpose is to require
both educational and service qualifications of those seeking appointment as chief of police is evidence
from a reading of the original provision of House Bill 6951 and the successive revision it underwent.
Under the enrolled bill theory, announced in Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, this text of the Act must be deemed
as importing absolute verity and as binding on the courts. As the Supreme Court of the United States said
in Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark:
The signing by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and, by the President of the Senate, in open
session, of an enrolled bill, is an official attestation by the two houses of such bill as one that has passed
Congress. It is a declaration by the two houses, through their presiding officers, to the President that a
bill, thus attested, has received in the form, the sanction of the legislative branch of the government, and
that it is delivered to him in obedience to the constitutional requirement that all bill which pass Congress
shall be presented to him. And when a bill, thus attested, receives his approval, its authentication as a bill
that has passed Congress should be deemed complete and unimpeachable. As the President has no
authority to approve a bill not passed by Congress, an enrolled Act in the custody of the Secretary of State,
and having the official attestations of the Speaker of the house of Representatives, of the President of the
Senate, and of the President of the United States, carries, on its face, a solemn assurance by the legislative
and executive departments of the government, charged, respectively, with the duty of enacting and
executing the laws, that it was passed by Congress. The respect due to co-equal and independent
department requires the judicial department to act upon that assurance, and to accept, as having passed
Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated; leaving the courts to determine, when the question
properly arises, whether the Act, so authenticated, is in conformity with the Constitution.
In conclusion, we hold that, under the present state of the law, the petitioner is neither qualified nor
eligible for appointment. And petition for mandamus is DENIED. No pronouncements as to costs.

Morales Vs Subido

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Morales Vs Subido

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Morales Vs Subido

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G. R.

You might also like