Case Digest (G.R. No. 191644) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Dennis A.B. Funa v. Acting Secretary Alberto C. Agra, G.R. No. 191644, decided on February 19, 2013, petitioner Dennis A.B. Funa, acting as a taxpayer, concerned citizen and lawyer, filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition on April 7, 2010 to challenge respondent Hon. Alberto C. Agra’s concurrent designation as Acting Secretary of Justice and Acting Solicitor General. Petitioner alleged that on March 1, 2010, President Gloria M. Macapagal‐Arroyo appointed Agra as Acting Secretary of Justice after Secretary Agnes VST Devanadera’s resignation, and on March 5, 2010, designated him concurrently as Acting Solicitor General—both appointments allegedly violative of Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. Respondent Agra’s version differed: he claimed to have been designated Acting Solicitor General on January 12, 2010, while serving as Government Corporate Counsel, and later appointed Acting Secretary of Justice on March 5, 2010, relinquishing his former Case Digest (G.R. No. 191644) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Antecedents
- On January 12, 2010, Alberto C. Agra was Government Corporate Counsel and was designated Acting Solicitor General by President Arroyo in place of Solicitor General Devanadera.
- On March 1, 2010, Devanadera resigned as Secretary of Justice to run for Congress; on March 5, 2010, President Arroyo designated Agra as Acting Secretary of Justice while he continued as Acting Solicitor General.
- On April 7, 2010, Dennis A.B. Funa filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition challenging the constitutionality of Agra’s concurrent designations under Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
- During pendency of the suit, President Aquino appointed Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz as Solicitor General; Cadiz assumed office on August 5, 2010.
- Contentions of the Parties
- Petitioner argues Section 13, Article VII prohibits any Cabinet member or deputy from holding another office—even in an acting capacity—and that Solicitor General is not ex officio to the Justice Secretary.
- Respondents contend Agra’s roles were temporary designations conferring duties only, not “holding” dual offices; invoke hold-over principle and OSG autonomy; assert no salary drawn from OSG after March 5, 2010.
- Petitioner replies there is no special circumstance exempting Agra; temporariness does not override constitutional ban; hold-over doctrine improperly invoked; Administrative Code mandates OSG independence.
Issues:
- Primary Issue
- Did Agra’s concurrent designation as Acting Secretary of Justice and Acting Solicitor General violate the constitutional prohibition against holding multiple offices by Cabinet members under Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)