Scribd
Upload
2K views1 page

Canonizado vs. Aguirre

This case involved a challenge to the removal of commissioners from the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) under Republic Act 8551. The petitioners argued that removing them from office before their terms expired violated their security of tenure. The Supreme Court ruled that RA 8551 did not expressly or impliedly abolish the positions. For an abolition of office to be valid, it must eliminate the office wholly and permanently, not simply replace existing officials. As RA 8551 did not significantly change the nature, composition or functions of NAPOLCOM, it did not validly abolish the petitioners' positions.

Uploaded by

Liz Lorenzo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views1 page

Canonizado vs. Aguirre

This case involved a challenge to the removal of commissioners from the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) under Republic Act 8551. The petitioners argued that removing them from office before their terms expired violated their security of tenure. The Supreme Court ruled that RA 8551 did not expressly or impliedly abolish the positions. For an abolition of office to be valid, it must eliminate the office wholly and permanently, not simply replace existing officials. As RA 8551 did not significantly change the nature, composition or functions of NAPOLCOM, it did not validly abolish the petitioners' positions.

Uploaded by

Liz Lorenzo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Canonizado vs. Aguirre, G.R. No.

133132, January 25, 2000



Canonizado vs. Aguirre
GR. No. L- 133132, January 25, 2000

FACTS:

The NAPOLCOM was originally created under RA No. 6075 (An Act Establishing The Philippine National Police Under A
Reorganized Department Of the Interior And Local Government, And For Other Purposes). Petitioners Edgar Dula Torre, Alexis
Canonizado, Rogelio Pureza and respondent Jose Adiong were members of the NAPOLCOM under RA 6975.
Dula Torres was first appointed on January 8, 1991 for a six year term and was reappointed on January 23, 1997 for
another 6 years. Canonizado was appointed on January 25, 1993 to serve the unexpired term of another Commissioner which
ended on Dec. 31, 1995. On Aug. 23, 1995, he was re-appointed for another 6 years. Pureza was appointed on Jan, 2, 1997 for
similar term of 6 years. Respondent Adiongs appointment was issued on July 23, 1996. None of their terms had expired at the time
the amendatory law was passed.
On March 6, 1998, RA 8551 took effect; it declared that the terms of the current Commissioners were deemed as expired
upon its effectivity. Consequently, President Ramos appointed Romeo Cairme on March 11, 1998 as member of the NAPOLCOM
for full 6 year term. Adiong was also given a term extension of 2 years since he had served less than 2 years of his previous term.
Completing the membership of the NAPOLCOM are Leo Magahum and Cleofe Factoran.
Petitioners argue that their removal from office by virtue of Sec. 8 of RA 8551 violates their security of tenure. Public
respondents insist that the express declaration in Sec. 8 of RA 8551 that the terms of petitioners offices are deemed expired
discloses the legislative intent to impliedly abolish NAPOLCOM created under RA 6975 pursuant to bona fide reorganization.

ISSUE:
1. Whether petitioners were removed by virtue of a valid abolition of their office by Congress?

DECISION:
NO.
RA 8551 did not expressly abolish petitioners positions.
This is precisely what RA 8551 seeks to do-declare the offices of the petitioners vacant, by declaring that the terms of
office of the current Commissioners are deemed expired, thereby removing petitioners herein from the civil service. Congress may
only be conceded this power if it is done pursuant to a bona fide abolition of the NAPOLCOM. RA 8551 did not expressly abolish
petitioners positions. In order to determine whether there has been an implied abolition, it becomes necessary to examine the
changes introduced by the new law in the nature, composition and functions of the NAPOLCOM.
The creation and abolition of public offices is primarily a legislative function. It is acknowledged that Congress may abolish
any office it creates without impairing the officers right to continue in the position held and that such power may be exercised for
various reasons, such as the lack of funds or in the interest of economy. However, in order for the abolition to be valid, it must be
made in good faith, not for political or personal reasons, or in order to circumvent the constitutional security of tenure of civil service
employees.
An abolition of office connotes an intention to do away with such office wholly and permanently, as the word abolished
denotes. Where one office is abolished and replaced with another office vested with similar functions, the abolition is legal nullity.

You might also like