Title
Funa vs. Agra
Case
G.R. No. 191644
Decision Date
Feb 19, 2013
Agra’s concurrent appointments as Acting Secretary of Justice and Acting Solicitor General were ruled unconstitutional, violating the 1987 Constitution’s prohibition on multiple offices for Cabinet members, though his actions remained valid under the de facto officer doctrine.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191644)

Justiciability, Standing, and Mootness

The Court found an actual controversy, petitioner’s taxpayer-citizen-lawyer standing, and timely raising of the constitutional question. Despite Cadiz’s later appointment, four exceptions to mootness applied—including a grave constitutional violation and issues capable of repetition yet evading review—warranting resolution.

Issue Presented

Whether Agra’s concurrent designations as Acting Secretary of Justice and Acting Solicitor General violated the constitutional prohibition against dual or multiple offices for Cabinet members and their deputies or assistants.

Constitutional Provisions on Multiple Offices

Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution imposes an absolute ban on Cabinet officials and their deputies or assistants holding any other government office during their tenure, subject only to exceptions expressly provided in the Constitution itself. Section 7(2), Article IX-B establishes a general rule for all appointive officials, allowing multiple offices only if authorized by law or intrinsic to their primary functions.

Stricter Prohibition for Cabinet Officials

The framers intended Section 13’s prohibition to be more stringent than the general rule in Section 7(2), Article IX-B. The phrase “unless otherwise provided in this Constitution” admits only those specific exceptions explicitly cited—such as the Vice-President’s eligibility for Cabinet membership and the Secretary of Justice’s ex officio seat in the Judicial and Bar Council. Acting or temporary designations do not escape Section 13’s reach.

Ex Officio Exception and Acting Capacity

Ex officio appointments derive automatically from holding another office and require no additional warrant or appointment. Agra’s two roles were not ex officio relative to one another; each office carries distinct powers, functions, and compensation. The DOJ and OSG are separate entities under the Administrative Code, and RA 9417 further elevates the Solicitor General to cabinet rank. Thus, neither designation derived from the other.

Compatibility Under the General Rule

Even under Section 7(2), Article IX-B, offices must be compatible—that is, not subordinate or repugnant in function. The Secretary of Justice’s duties (criminal justice administration, free legal aid, immigration regulation, land dispute resolution) and the Solicitor General’s litigation and advisory functions are neither subordinate nor functionally interdependent. Their simultaneous exercise by one person is both impractical and inimical to good governance.

Ruling and Declarations

The designation of Agra as Acting Secretary of Justice concu

...continue reading

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