This case treats of the power of appointment of a Punong Barangay of barangay officials like treasurer, secretary and other workers. Under the Local Government Code, (Sec. 394 and 395), such power is to be exercised conjointly by the punong barangay and a majority of all the members of the Sangguniang Barangay. But can the Punong Barangay unilaterally remove or terminate incumbent barangay officials even without the concurrence of the majority of the Sangguniang Barangay?
This question arose in a certain barangay down south after the last barangay election when a new Punong Barangay Artemio Ramos (not his true name) won the post of Punong Barangay.
One of the first acts of Artemio after assuming office was to terminate the services of Gerardo as barangay treasurer and Pablo as barangay secretary, as well as five other barangay utility workers. In place of Gerardo and Pablo, Artemio appointed Myrna and Diego as barangay treasurer and barangay secretary, respectively. In compliance with secs. 394 and 395 of the Local Government Code, Artemio submitted both appointments to the Sangguniang Barangay for approval. But the Sanggunian rejected his appointments.
By virtue of this rejection, Gerardo and Pablo and the five other workers removed by Artemio filed a complaint for quo warranto, mandamus and prohibition with the Regional Trial Court to order Artemio to cease and desist from dismissing them on the ground that their dismissal had been effected without the corresponding approval of the Sangguniang Barangay. Artemio, however, countered that only appointments and not removal or dismissal of barangay officials required approval of the Sangguniang Barangay.
So his unilateral dismissal of the barangay officials is justified. Was Artemio correct?
No. The Code (in Section 389) explicitly vests on the Punong Barangay upon approval by a majority of all members of the Sangguniang Barangay, the power to appoint or "replace" the barangay treasurer, the barangay secretary and other barangay officials. The term "replace" would obviously embrace not only the appointment of the replacement but also prior removal of, or the vacation by the official currently occupying the appointive position concerned. To "replace" is to take the place of, to serve as a substitute for or successor of, to put in place of, or to fill the post of an incumbent. In order to provide a replacement to an office, the prior holder must have first been remove, or the office must have, otherwise been previously rendered vacant.
No other provision in the Local Government Code treats of the power of the Punong Barangay to remove the barangay secretary, the barangay treasurer or any other appointive barangay official from office aside from what is implicit in the above Sec. 389. The duration of the term of office of these barangay officials have not been fixed by the Local Government Code. Where the tenure of office is not fixed by law, it is a sound and useful rule to consider the power of removal as being an incident to the power of appointment. The power to remove is deemed implied in the power to appoint.
Applying the rule that the power to appoint includes the power to remove, the questioned dismissal from office of the barangay officials by the Punong Barangay without the concurrence of the majority of all the members of the Sangguniang Barangay cannot be legally justified. To rule otherwise could also create an absurd situation of the Sangguniang Barangay members refusing, like here, to give their approval to the replacements selected by the Punong Barangay who has unilaterally terminated the services of the incumbents. It is likely that the legislature did not intend this absurdity to flow from its enactment of the law (Alquizote Sr. et. al. vs. Ocol et. al. G.R. No. 132413 Aug. 27, 1999).
Atty. Sison's e-mail address is: sison@ipaglabanmo.org