Case Digest (G.R. No. 138965)
Facts:
Public Interest Center, Inc., Laureano T. Angeles and Jocelyn P. Celestino v. Magdangal B. Elma, G.R. No. 138965, March 05, 2007, Supreme Court Third Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners challenged the concurrent appointments of Magdangal B. Elma, who was appointed Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) on 30 October 1998 and later was appointed Chief Presidential Legal Counsel (CPLC). Elma accepted the second appointment as CPLC but waived any remuneration for that position. Petitioners sought a declaration that both appointments were unconstitutional and void for being incompatible.
The Third Division of the Supreme Court issued a Decision (promulgated 30 June 2006) declaring Elma’s concurrent appointments unconstitutional for violating the incompatibility provision in Section 7, paragraph 2, Article IX‑B of the 1987 Constitution. The Court reasoned that the CPLC’s duties — to give independent and impartial legal advice on actions of heads of executive departments and to review investigations involving such heads — conflict with Elma’s position as head of an executive agency (PCGG), whose actions could be reviewed by the CPLC.
Respondents filed Omnibus Motions (Elma’s dated 14 August 2006; Solicitor General’s dated 11 August 2006) seeking (1) reconsideration of the June 30, 2006 Decision, (2) clarification of the dispositive portion of the Decision, and (3) elevation of the case to the Court en banc. The Court considered those motions and, in the present Resolution, denied reconsideration and elevation and clarified the legal effect of its prior ruling. The Court noted that Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution (the prohibition on holding other offices by cabinet members) did not strictly apply because neither office here is that of a secretary, undersecretary, or assistant secretary — though the Court observed that if Section 13 were applicable the incompatibility would be even clearer.
The Court also clarified that its declaration of unconstitutionality for concurrent holding did not render both appointments simultaneously void; rather, under the common‑law rule on incompatibility the acceptance of the second incom...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should the Court grant respondents’ motion for reconsideration of the Decision declaring respondent Elma’s concurrent appointments unconstitutional?
- Did the Court’s declaration that the concurrent appointments are unconstitutional render both appointments void, or what is the legal effect of the incompatibility ruling?
- Should the case be elevated to the Cou...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)