Manalo v. Sistoza Date of Promulgation: 11 August 1999 Nature: Special Civil Action in the SC.

Prohibition Facts: Concerned with limits of power of Commission of Appointments to confirm appointments issued by the Chief Executive uestion constitutionality and legality of permanent appointments issued by Pres. Cory A!uino to senior officers of P"P who were promoted to ran#s of Chief Superintendent and $irector without appointments submitted to Commission on Appointments for confirmation under Sec. 1%& Art. '((& 19)* Constitution and +A %9*, -.ocal /ov0t Act of 19912. Secretary of 3udget and 4anagement Enri!ue5 impleaded for disbursements for salaries and other emoluments of police officers 16 $ecember 19917 +A %9*, creating $epartment of (nterior and .ocal /overnment was signed into law by Pres. Cory A!uino -12 providing for powers& functions and term of office of P"P chief 8Sec. 9%:; -92 Appointment of P"P officers and members 8Sec. 61: 11 4arch 19997 President through Exec. Sec. $rilon promoted 1, respondent police officers by appointing them to position in P"P with ran# of Chief Superintendent to $irector Appointments of police were in permanent capacity <ithout submission of their names to CA for confirmation& police officers too# their oath& salaries were disbursed by Sec. Enri!ue5 91 =ctober 19997 Petition for prohibition to assail legality of appointments and disbursements thereof. Issues: -12 <=" the appointments made by the President were valid even

without the confirmation of Commission on Appointments -92 <=" there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of Sec. Enri!ue5 in the disbursements of salaries and emoluments of the respondent police officers Ruling: Petition $(S4(SSE$ Held: -12 YES a!!ointments are valid. P"P& herein respondents& do not fall under the first category of presidential appointees re!uiring the confirmation by Commission on Appointments. -92 N" there is no grave abuse of discretion in authori5ing and effecting disbursements for salaries and other emoluments of police officers whose appointments are valid Ratio: On valid appointments: Presumption of Constitutionality Power to ma#e appointments vested in Chief Executive by Sec. 1%& Art '(( Sec& 1%& Art '(( provide for four groups of government to be appointed by President7 -12 >eads of executive departments& ambassadors& either public ministers and consuls& officers of armed forces from the ran# of colonel or naval captain& and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution; -92 All other officers of thee /overnment whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law; -62 ?hose whom the President may be authori5ed by law to appoint -@2 =fficers lower in ran# whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone. 1

 =".A P+ES($E"?(A. APP=("?4E"?S 3E.="/("/ ?= B(+S? /+=CP +E C(+E ?>E C="B(+4A?(=" 3A C=44(SS(=" =B APP=("?4E"?S. As held in Tarrosa v. Singson Congress cannot by law expand the power of confirmation of Commission on Appointments and re!uire confirmation of appointments of other government officials not mentioned in first sentence of Sec. 1%& Art '(( Cnconstitutional Sec. 9% D 61 of +A %9*, which empower the Comm. =n Appointments to confirm appointments of public officials whose appointments are not re!uired by Constitution to be confirmed. >owever& rest of +A %9*, stands when provisions of law declared void are severable from main statute and removal of unconstitutional provision would not affect validity and enforceability of other provisions& statute remains valid without voided sections. P"P is separate from ABP so& issue on P"P appointment similar to those stated in first set aforementioned regarding ABP. See Art. E'(& Sec @ D %& 19)* Constitution. See Sec. 9& +A %9*, F.. no element of the police force shall be military nor shall any position thereof be occupied by active members of ABPG On grave abuse of discretion: valid appointment H valid disbursement. ?>CS& no grave abuse of discretion