Title
Astraquillo vs. Manglapus
Case
G.R. No. 88183
Decision Date
Oct 3, 1990
Non-career ambassadors appointed by President Aquino challenged their termination, claiming security of tenure. SC ruled their removal valid, as political appointees serve at the President's pleasure without cause or due process.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 88183)

Background of Termination Cases

The petitioners were appointed by the President of the Philippines to various ambassadorial posts during the administration of President Corazon Aquino. Their appointments gave rise to the question of whether their service could be terminated without cause, given their classification as political appointees. Specifically, Astraquillo was assigned to the United Arab Emirates, Glang to Kuwait, and Melchor to Moscow.

Facts Relating to Astraquillo

Isabelo Astraquillo was appointed as Ambassador on July 22, 1986. Following allegations of misconduct by the Philippine Labor Attache, a formal investigation was conducted, leading to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs recommending his termination, which was approved by the President. Despite an extension of his term, Astraquillo sought judicial redress for what he claimed was an unlawful dismissal.

Facts Relating to Glang

Alunan C. Glang received his ambassadorship on September 11, 1986. On May 27, 1989, he was notified of his termination effective June 30, 1989, through a memorandum that the President had approved. Glang contested this termination, arguing his removal violated Republic Act No. 704, providing him with a right to security of tenure.

Facts Relating to Melchor

Alejandro Melchor, Jr. was appointed on June 27, 1986, but faced accusations of misconduct by his subordinates. An investigation was initiated, although the charges against him were later dropped. Nevertheless, his services were terminated by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs based on a recommendation approved by the President, leading to his own petitions questioning the legality of his dismissal.

Legal Framework: Career vs. Non-Career Service

The cases hinge on the classification of the petitioners' positions as either “career” or “non-career” within the Public Service framework established by Presidential Decree No. 807. Career service positions require merit-based appointments, while non-career roles, such as those held by the petitioners, can be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing authority.

Arguments Presented by the Petitioners

The petitioners jointly argued that their removals were not executed directly by the President, lacked stated causes, were performed without due process, and that they had been appointed under political circumstances that should protect their positions.

Analysis of the Court's Ruling

The Court affirmed that the petitioners held non-career positions, which are characterized by limited

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.