A.M. No. CA-05-18-P - Nuez vs. Cruz-Apao

Case Summary (A.M. No. CA-05-18-P)

Petitioner and Respondents

Petitioner: Dennis A. B. Funa
Respondents:

Maria Elena H. Bautista, Undersecretary for Maritime Transport, DOTC; designated Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of MARINA
Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita
Secretary Leandro R. Mendoza, DOTC
Other officiating executives involved in designation processes

Key Dates

October 4, 2006: Bautista appointed DOTC Undersecretary
September 1, 2008: Bautista designated MARINA OIC Administrator
October 21, 2008: Petition filed
February 2, 2009: Bautista assumes regular appointment as MARINA Administrator
February 11, 2010: En Banc decision rendered

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution, Article VII, Section 13 (prohibition on holding multiple offices by Cabinet members and their deputies or assistants)
Article IX-B, Section 7(2) (general prohibition on multiple offices for appointive officials)
Presidential Decree No. 474 as amended (MARINA charter)
Executive Order No. 125-A (reorganizing DOTC)

Antecedents

President Arroyo appointed Bautista as DOTC Undersecretary in October 2006 and designated her MARINA OIC in September 2008 following the MARINA Administrator’s resignation. Petitioner challenged the concurrent roles as unconstitutional under Section 13, Article VII, asserting the MARINA post was not an ex officio duty of a DOTC Undersecretary and that the prohibition against multiple offices admits no temporal exception.

Issues Presented

Whether Bautista’s concurrent designation as DOTC Undersecretary and MARINA OIC Administrator violated the explicit constitutional bar in Article VII, Section 13, on Cabinet members and their deputies or assistants holding any other office or employment.

Arguments of Petitioner

Section 13, Article VII prohibits dual office-holding by Cabinet deputies and assistants without exception for temporary designations.
MARINA Administrator is not an ex officio function of the DOTC Undersecretary under P.D. No. 474 or the Administrative Code of 1987; Bautista’s OIC designation required a separate warrant of appointment.
Temporary capacity does not cure the constitutional proscription, as duration is indeterminate and could be abused.
Concurrent functions compromise checks and balances between DOTC maritime policy oversight and MARINA regulatory actions.
The case remains justiciable despite Bautista’s subsequent regular appointment, under the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” doctrine.

Arguments of Respondents

Bautista’s assumption of the MARINA Administrator role and relinquishment of her Undersecretary post rendered the petition moot and academic.
Petitioner lacks standing, having alleged no personal or substantial interest or illegal expenditure of public funds.
The OIC designation was a recognized temporary measure without additional compensation, falling under exceptions to multiple-office prohibitions.
The two offices are not incompatible since MARINA recommendations go to its Board, not to the DOTC Undersecretary.

Court’s Analysis: Judicial Review, Standing and Mootness

Four requisites for judicial review are satisfied: actual controversy, petitioner’s standing as a concerned citizen raising a constitutional issue of transcendent importance, early raising of the question, and constitutional issue as the lis mota.
Supervening events do not bar resolution of grave constitutional issues capable of repetition yet evading review.
Petitioner’s status as a taxpayer and concerned citizen confers standing to enforce the Section 13 prohibition.

Court’s Analysis: Constitutional Prohibition on Multiple Offices

Section 13, Article VII imposes an absolute prohibition on Cabinet members and their deputies or assistants holding any other office or employment, unless expressly provided in the Constitution (e.g., Vice-President in Cabinet, Justice Secretary ex officio on Judicial and Bar Council).
Section 7(2), Article IX-B is the general rule for all appointive officials and secondary to the stricter Section 13 rule for the President’s official family.
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary confirms that MarlINA’s offices are not ex officio duties of a DOTC Undersecretary and cannot be folded into her primary position without separate constitutional authorization.
Respondents failed to prove that the OIC designation was an ex officio imposition of duties within the primary functions of the Undersecretary role.

Court’s Conclusion and Ruling

The designation of Maria Elena H. Bautista as OIC Administrator of MARINA, concurrent wi

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. CA-05-18-P)

Facts and Antecedents

On October 4, 2006, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointed Maria Elena H. Bautista as Undersecretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC).
Bautista was designated Undersecretary for Maritime Transport under Special Order No. 2006-171 dated October 23, 2006.
After the resignation of MARINA Administrator Vicente T. Suazo, Jr., on September 1, 2008, Bautista was designated Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) while still serving as DOTC Undersecretary.
On October 21, 2008, Dennis A. B. Funa, in his capacity as taxpayer, concerned citizen, and lawyer, filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus under Rule 65, with prayer for a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction, challenging the constitutionality of Bautista’s concurrent designation.
During the pendency of the petition, on January 5, 2009, Bautista was appointed MARINA Administrator and assumed that office on February 2, 2009, relinquishing her DOTC Undersecretary post.

Procedural Posture

Petitioner sought to declare the OIC designation unconstitutional under Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
He prayed for a TRO/WPI to enjoin her from acting as MARINA OIC.
Respondents moved to dismiss on grounds of mootness (supervening appointment and relinquishment of posts) and lack of petitioner’s legal standing.

Issues

Whether the designation of the DOTC Undersecretary as concurrent OIC of MARINA violated the constitutional proscription against holding “any other office or employment” under Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
Whether a temporary or unpaid designation falls outside the constitutional prohibition.
Whether the two positions are legally incompatible, thus raising a separate bar.
Whether mootness or lack of standing should bar judicial review.

Petitioner’s Contentions

Section 13, Article VII prohibits Cabinet members, deputies, and assistants from holding any other office unless the Constitution itself provides otherwise.
Bautista’s duties at MARINA were not ex-officio, as P.D. 474 and EO 125-A do not vest the DOTC Undersecretary with automatic authority over MARINA.
A separate appointment/designation was required; the absence of “further warrant or appoint” for ex-officio offices is the test.
Temporariness is not an exception in Section 13, Article VII; a designation of indefinite duration can be used to evade the ban.
Remuneration is irrelevant to the constitutional disqualification.
The dual holding undermines checks and balances: MARINA recommendations could conflict with DOTC maritime polic