Andaya vs. RTC (Cebu City)

A city mayor, acting as a deputized representative of the National Police Commission under Section 51 of Republic Act No. 6975, has no authority to require the Regional Police Director to include any particular officer in the list of five eligibles for chief of police; the mayor's power is limited to choosing one name from the list, and the power to appoint vests in the Regional Police Director.

Petitioner Jose S. Andaya was the Regional Director of Regional Police Command No. 7, tasked with recommending eligibles for the position of City Director, Cebu City Police Command (chief of police). Petitioner Edgardo L. Inciong was the Regional Director of the National Police Commission. Respondent City of Cebu, through Mayor Alvin B. Garcia, sought to have P/Chief Inspector Andres Sarmiento included among the five recommendees for the vacant chief of police position. The appointment framework governing the position derives from Section 51 of Republic Act No. 6975, which deputizes the city mayor as a representative of the National Police Commission and grants the mayor authority to choose the chief of police from a list of five eligibles recommended by the Regional Police Director, with the National Police Commission issuing implementing circulars prescribing minimum qualification standards.

On January 3, 1996, the position of City Director, Cebu City Police Command (chief of police) became vacant after P/Supt. Antonio Enteria was relieved of command. Sometime in January 1996, petitioner Jose S. Andaya, as Regional Director of Regional Police Command No. 7, submitted to Cebu City Mayor Alvin B. Garcia a list of five eligibles from which the mayor was to choose one for appointment as chief of police. The mayor refused to select anyone from the list because the name of P/Chief Inspector Andres Sarmiento was not included therein.

Mayor Garcia requested that Sarmiento's name be added to the list, but petitioner Andaya refused. Andaya's refusal was grounded on NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 95-04, dated January 12, 1995, which prescribed minimum qualification standards for Directors of Provincial/City Police Commands, including completion of the Officers' Senior Executive Course (OSEC) and the rank of Police Superintendent — qualifications which, according to Andaya, Sarmiento did not possess. Due to the impasse, the City of Cebu filed on March 22, 1996 a complaint for declaratory relief with preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction and temporary restraining order against Andaya and petitioner Edgardo L. Inciong, Regional Director of the National Police Commission.

Petitioners filed their answer on April 10, 1996, asserting that the power to designate the chief of police is vested in the Regional Director, with the mayor's role limited to choosing from the list of five eligibles, and that in case of conflict the matter should be elevated to the NAPOLCOM Regional Director whose decision would be final and executory. They prayed for dismissal on grounds of lack of legal basis and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On April 18, 1996, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining Andaya from replacing Sarmiento as OIC Chief of Police and from submitting any list that excluded Sarmiento. On July 12, 1996, the trial court rendered judgment declaring Sarmiento qualified under R.A. No. 6975 and ordering his inclusion in the list of five eligibles, making the prohibitory injunction permanent and issuing a mandatory injunction to that effect. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied on September 11, 1996, prompting the present petition.

• Scope of Mayor's Authority: Petitioners argued that under Section 51 of Republic Act No. 6975, the mayor is empowered only to choose one from the five eligibles recommended by the Regional Police Director, and may not superimpose his will on the recommending authority by insisting that a particular protégé be included in the list.
• Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies: Petitioners maintained that in case of disagreement between the Regional Police Director and the mayor, the issue should be elevated to the Regional Director of the National Police Commission, who shall resolve it within five working days, whose decision shall be final and executory; hence, the complaint before the trial court was premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
• Validity of NAPOLCOM Circular: Petitioners relied on NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 95-04 as a valid implementing issuance prescribing minimum qualifications for the position, under which Sarmiento was allegedly not qualified.

• Invalidity of NAPOLCOM Circular: Respondent City of Cebu, through the mayor, submitted that NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 95-04 prescribing additional qualifications for chief of police of highly urbanized cities was not valid because it contravened Republic Act No. 6975.
• Qualification of Sarmiento: Respondent contended that P/Chief Inspector Andres Sarmiento was qualified under R.A. No. 6975 to be appointed as City Director or Chief of Police of the Cebu City Police Command and that his name must be included in the list of five eligibles.

• Scope of Mayor's Authority: Whether the mayor of Cebu City may require the Regional Director, Regional Police Command No. 7, to include a particular nominee in the list of five eligibles from which the mayor shall choose the chief of police.
• Validity of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 95-04: Whether NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 95-04, prescribing additional qualifications for chief of police of highly urbanized cities, is a valid implementing issuance under Republic Act No. 6975.

• Scope of Mayor's Authority: No. The mayor's authority under Section 51 of R.A. No. 6975 is limited to selecting one from the list of five eligibles prepared by the Regional Police Director; the mayor cannot require the inclusion of any particular officer in that list, the power to appoint being vested in the Regional Director.
• Validity of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 95-04: Yes. The circular is a valid implementation of R.A. No. 6975, prescribing minimum qualification standards for Directors of Provincial/City Police Commands, including completion of the OSEC and the rank of Police Superintendent.

• Scope of Mayor's Authority: Under Section 51 of Republic Act No. 6975, the mayor of a highly urbanized city, once deputized as representative of the National Police Commission, has authority to choose the chief of police from a list of five eligibles recommended by the Regional Police Director. The City Police Station of Cebu City is under the direct command and control of the PNP Regional Director, Regional Police Command No. 7, and is equivalent to a provincial office. The Regional Director appoints the officer selected by the mayor. It is the prerogative of the Regional Police Director to name the five eligibles from a pool of eligible officers screened by the Senior Officers Promotion and Selection Board, without interference from local executives. In case of disagreement between the Regional Police Director and the mayor, the question is elevated to the Regional Director of the National Police Commission, whose decision is final and executory. As deputy of the Commission, the mayor has no power of appointment; he has only the limited power of selecting one from the list. Much less may the mayor require the Regional Director to include any particular name in the list. The purpose is to enhance police professionalism and to isolate the police service from political domination. The trial court therefore erred in granting the preliminary injunction that restrained the Regional Director from performing his statutory function, and the writ issued on April 18, 1996 was contrary to law and void.

• Validity of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 95-04: The National Police Commission issued Memorandum Circular No. 95-04 for the implementation of Republic Act No. 6975. It prescribes that among the qualifications for chief of police of highly urbanized cities are completion of the Officers' Senior Executive Course (OSEC) and holding the rank of Police Superintendent. The mayor's submission that the circular contravenes the law was rejected, the Court finding that the circular operates consistently with the statutory framework of Section 51, which vests the recommending and appointing authority in the Regional Police Director and limits the mayor's role to selection from the list.

• Limited Authority of Deputized City Mayor in Police Appointments — Under Section 51 of Republic Act No. 6975, a city mayor deputized as representative of the National Police Commission has no power of appointment over the chief of police. The mayor's authority is confined to selecting one name from a list of five eligibles prepared by the Regional Police Director. The power to appoint the chief of police is vested in the Regional Police Director. The mayor may not require the inclusion of any particular officer in the list, as the purpose of the statutory scheme is to enhance police professionalism and insulate the police service from political domination.
• Conflict Resolution Mechanism in Chief of Police Appointments — Where a disagreement arises between the Regional Police Director and the city mayor regarding the choice of chief of police, the issue shall be elevated to the Regional Director of the National Police Commission, who shall resolve the matter within five working days from receipt, whose decision on the choice of the chief of police shall be final and executory.

• "As deputy of the Commission, the authority of the mayor is very limited. In reality, he has no power of appointment; he has only the limited power of selecting one from among the list of five eligibles to be named the chief of police." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi, defining the precise scope of the mayor's authority under Section 51 of R.A. No. 6975 and distinguishing selection from appointment.

• "Much less may the mayor require the Regional Director, Regional Police Command, to include the name of any officer, no matter how qualified, in the list of five to be submitted to the mayor. The purpose is to enhance police professionalism and to isolate the police service from political domination." — This formulation states the policy rationale underlying the statutory scheme and is the canonical expression of the Court's reasoning on the separation of police appointments from local political influence.

• Napolcom Resolution No. 92-36, dated October 15, 1992 — Cited to establish that the City Police Station of Cebu City is under the direct command and control of the PNP Regional Director, Regional Police Command No. 7, and is equivalent to a provincial office, reinforcing the Regional Director's recommending authority.

• Section 51, Republic Act No. 6975 — Governs the appointment of the chief of police in highly urbanized cities. It deputizes the city mayor as representative of the National Police Commission and grants the mayor authority to choose the chief of police from a list of five eligibles recommended by the Regional Police Director. The provision was applied to confirm that the mayor's role is limited to selection, while the power to appoint vests in the Regional Director, and to establish the conflict-resolution mechanism involving the NAPOLCOM Regional Director.
• NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 95-04, dated January 12, 1995 — Implements R.A. No. 6975 by prescribing minimum qualification standards for Directors of Provincial/City Police Commands, including completion of the Officers' Senior Executive Course (OSEC) and the rank of Police Superintendent. The circular was upheld as a valid implementing issuance.
• NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 93-013, Section 6 — Provides that in case of disagreement between the Regional Police Director and the mayor, the issue shall be elevated to the Regional Director of the National Police Commission, whose decision on the choice of the chief of police shall be final and executory.

• Kapunan, J. — Concurred in the majority opinion.
• Ynares-Santiago, J. — Concurred in the majority opinion.
• Davide, Jr., C.J. — Concurred but on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, aligning with Justice Puno's separate concurrence rather than the majority's reasoning on the merits.
• Puno, J. — Concurred but on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, agreeing with the result but resting the disposition on the petitioners' argument that the City of Cebu prematurely sought judicial relief without first elevating the disagreement to the NAPOLCOM Regional Director as required under the statutory scheme.