Case Summary (G.R. No. 138965)
Appointments and Waiver of Compensation
Elma took his oath as PCGG Chairman on October 30, 1998, and, while still in that office, was appointed CPLC on January 11, 1999. He assumed the latter post the next day and expressly waived any remuneration for the CPLC role.
Petitioners’ and Respondents’ Contentions
Petitioners cited Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary to argue that Section 13, Article VII bars any member of the Cabinet or their deputies or assistants from holding another office. Respondents contended that Section 13 applies solely to heads of executive departments and their deputies or assistants, and that Elma’s case is governed instead by the more general prohibition in Section 7(2), Article IX-B, which permits multiple appointive positions if allowed by law or by the primary functions of the offices.
Justiciability Despite Mootness
Although subsequent political appointments rendered Elma’s dual tenure moot, the Court deemed the issue “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” and stressed its duty to resolve constitutional questions of grave importance under its exclusive power to interpret the Constitution.
Constitutional Provisions on Multiple Offices
Article VII, Section 13 provides that no member of the Cabinet or their deputies or assistants shall hold any other office or employment, unless otherwise provided in the Constitution. Article IX-B, Section 7(2) establishes the general rule that no appointive official may hold another government office or employment unless allowed by law or by the primary functions of the position.
Harmonization of Section 7(2), Article IX-B and Section 13, Article VII
In Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, the Court held that Section 7(2), Article IX-B is the general rule for all appointive officials, allowing concurrent offices when permitted by law or functions, while Section 13, Article VII is the stricter exception, applying only to Cabinet members and their deputies or assistants, who may hold an additional office only when expressly authorized by the Constitution itself.
Incompatibility Test for Concurrent Offices
Invoking People v. Green, the Court defined incompatibility as the condition where one office is subordinate to, or interferes with, the duties of another, yielding inconsistency or repugnance in function that would compromise impartial discharge of duties.
Incompatibility of PCGG Chairman and CPLC Functions
The CPLC’s duties include reviewing investigations and giving advice on actions of executive department heads, which necessarily encompass the PCGG as an executive agency. Thus, Elma, as CPLC, would be required to review or opine on his own decisions as PCGG Chairman, creating a direct c
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 138965)
Procedural and Factual Background
- Original action for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction filed on June 30, 1999.
- Petitioners seek nullification of concurrent appointments of Magdangal B. Elma as Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and as Chief Presidential Legal Counsel (CPLC).
- Alleged violation of Section 13, Article VII and Section 7(2), Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution.
- Respondent Elma appointed PCGG Chairman on October 30, 1998; sworn in same day.
- Appointed CPLC on January 11, 1999; sworn in January 12, 1999; waived any remuneration as CPLC.
- Ronaldo Zamora sued in his official capacity as Executive Secretary.
Issues Presented
- Whether Elma’s concurrent appointments violate Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
- Whether they contravene Section 7(2), Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution.
- Whether the offices of PCGG Chairman and CPLC are constitutionally incompatible.
Petitioners’ Contentions
- Concurrent holding of PCGG Chairman and CPLC contravenes the strict prohibitions in Section 13, Article VII and Section 7(2), Article IX-B.
- Reliance on Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary to define scope of prohibition.
- Allegation that the two offices are incompatible.
- Prayer for writs of prohibition and mandamus; injunctive relief to enjoin performance of duties and receipt of benefits.
Respondents’ Arguments
- Section 13, Article VII’s prohibition applies only to Cabinet members, their undersecretaries and assistants.
- Section 7(2), Article IX-B is the proper provision, allowing concurrent office if authorized by law or by primary functions of the position.
- No