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, June 30, 2006, Supreme Court First Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners sought certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with a prayer for a TRO/preliminary injunction filed on 30 June 1999 to annul respondent Magdangal B. Elma’s concurrent appointments as Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and Chief Presidential Legal Counsel (CPLC), and to enjoin him from exercising either office or receiving compensation; Ronaldo Zamora was sued in his official capacity as Executive Secretary.On 30 October 1998 Elma was appointed and took his oath as PCGG Chairman. While still PCGG Chairman, he was appointed CPLC on 11 January 1999 and took his oath the next day, expressly waiving any remuneration as CPLC. Petitioners invoked Section 13, Article VII and Section 7, Article IX‑B of the 1987 Constitution and relied on Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary to argue the dual appointments were prohibited and the offices incompatible.
Respondents defended the appointments by relying on the Court’s Resolution in Civil Liberties Union to contend that the strict bar of Section 13, Article VII applies only to heads of executive departments and their deputies/assistants, and by invoking Section 7, Article IX‑B’s allowance for concurrent posts when the law or the primary functions so permit; they also argued the two offices were closely related and traditionally held concurrently by incumbent officials.
Although the challenged appointments were functionally terminated by the 2001 change of administration, the Court found the controversy fit the exception for...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the petition moot and therefore nonjusticiable in light of supervening events?
- Do the concurrent appointments of the PCGG Chairman and the CPLC violate Section 7, Article IX‑B of the 1987 Constitution because the two offices are incompatible?
- Do the concurrent appointments violate Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution as applied to members of the Cabinet,...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)