G.R. No. 34665 - People vs. Bindoy

The case consolidates five petitions involving appointments and removals of Philippine diplomats.
All petitions pivot on the common issue of whether the termination of service by the President, via the recommendation of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, is valid for “political” or “non-career” Foreign Service members.

Appointed on July 22, 1986 as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and Chief of Mission (Class II) to the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
After roughly two years in service, a confidential memorandum escalated allegations involving improper interference, leading to an investigation by Ambassador Pacifico Castro.
The investigation resulted in a recommendation by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to terminate Astraquillo’s appointment, which was subsequently approved by the President and effectuated on April 18, 1989.
Astraquillo sought an extension of his term and later challenged both his removal and the appointment of his replacement through petitions in this Court.

Appointed by President Aquino on September 11, 1986 as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and Chief of Mission (Class I) to Kuwait, assuming post on January 11, 1987.
On May 27, 1989, he received a telex message from the Secretary of Foreign Affairs terminating his services effective by June 30, 1989, quoting a memorandum signed on May 18, 1989.
Glang challenged his removal on the grounds that his appointment, being in the non-career service, ensured security of tenure and required removal only for cause after due procedure.

Appointed on June 27, 1986 as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Moscow, U.S.S.R. and later as Chief of Mission (Class I).
Subsequently, he faced disciplinary proceedings after a complaint filed by embassy personnel in Moscow alleging various infractions such as unauthorized activities and leaving his post without permission.
Although he submitted responses and appeals, the Board of Foreign Service Administration (BFSA) eventually recommended his removal.
Before the administrative case concluded, a memorandum from the Secretary of Foreign Affairs recommended his termination as a “political” or “non-career” Ambassador, which was approved by the President.
Melchor’s petitions also challenged the reassignment of Ambassador Juan V. Saez and contended that his status as Chief of Mission conferred additional security of tenure, contrary to his removal.

Their removals were not effected directly by the President but through the Secretary’s action, which they contended was beyond his authority.
Their separations lacked an explicit legal cause as required by the Foreign Service Act and the Civil Service Law.
They were denied due process since no prior notice or hearing was provided.
Their appointments were made immediately after the “EDSA Resolution” and during Vice-President Laurel’s term as Foreign Affairs Minister.
Their appointments as Chief of Mission (except for Astraquillo, classified as Class II) implied a security of tenure that should have protected them from removal without cause.

Under Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Law), positions in the non-career service (including political appointees such as ambassadors, department heads, and other officials at the President’s pleasure) differ fundamentally from those in the career service.
The petitioners were appointed without the customary competitive examination or merit-based process typical for career service positions, thereby rendering their tenures subject to the pleasure of the appointing authority.

Whether the termination of the petitioners’ appointments, made under the authority of the President, is valid under the laws governing non-career service appointments.
Whether the removal of a “political” or “non-career” diplomat, without a preceding investigative hearing or proof of legally prescribed cause, violates due process requirements.
Whether the Secretary of Foreign Affairs had the requisite authority to recommend the termination of the petitioners’ appointments, given that such appointments are subject exclusively to the President’s discretion.
Whether the petitioners’ appointment as Chief of Mission (or as ambassadors) confers any additional security of tenure that would require adherence to procedures similar to those for career service employees.
Whether the unsuccessful petitions for quo warranto to challenge the appointment of their replacements are legally sustainable.