FUNA VS.

AGRA GR 191644 February 19, 2013

FACTS:
In March 1, Hon. Alberto C. Agra was appointed by PGMA as Acting Secretary of Justice in place
of outgoing Secretary Devenadera who was running for Congress in May 2010.

However, in March 5, 2010, Agra was also appointed as Acting Solicitor General in concurrent
capacity.

The petition was filed on April 7, 2010 by petitioner as a taxpayer alleging that the appointments
were prohibited under:
o Section 13 Art VII
Prohibits the President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their
deputies or assistants from holding any other office or employment during their
tenure unless otherwise provided in the Constitution), and
o Section 7, paragraph (2), Article IX-B
Bans any appointive official from holding any other office or employment in the
Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, unless
otherwise allowed by law or the primary functions of his position.

During the pendency of the suit, PeNoy appointed Atty. Jose Cadiz as Solicitor General and the
latter commenced his duties.

Respondents contend that Agras concurrent designations were only in a temporary capacity, the
only effect of which was to confer additional duties to him. Thus, as the Acting Solicitor General
and Acting Secretary of Justice, Agra was not holding both offices in the strict constitutional
sense (which must be regular and permanent and not a mere designation).

ISSUES:
WON petitioner has locus standi
WON the case is moot and academic by virtue of the appointment of Cadiz as SolGen
WON the designation of Agra as the Acting Secretary of Justice, concurrently with his position of
Acting Solicitor General, violated the constitutional prohibition against dual or multiple offices
for the Members of the Cabinet and their deputies and assistants

HELD:
Yes. This case is of transcendental importance, since it obviously has far-reaching implications,
and there is a need to promulgate rules that will guide the bench, bar, and the public in future
analogous cases. The SC took a liberal stance in allowing the petition and resolving the
controversy.

Yes. However, the Court did not desist from resolving an issue even if a supervening event has
rendered it moot and academic, if any of the following recognized exceptions are present,
namely:
o There was a grave violation of the Constitution;
 o The case involved a situation of exceptional character and was of paramount public
interest;
o The constitutional issue raised required the formulation of controlling principles to guide
the Bench, the Bar and the public; and
o The case was capable of repetition, yet evading review.

Yes. Being designated as the Acting Secretary of Justice concurrently with his position of Acting
Solicitor General comes under the cover of Section 13, Article VII. Agra could not validly hold any
other office or employment during his tenure as the Acting Solicitor General, because the
Constitution has not otherwise so provided.
o It does not even matter if the appointment was merely in acting capacity since the law
did not distinguish if the nature of the position was permanent or temporary.
o To hold an office means to possess or to occupy the office, or to be in possession and
administration of the office, which implies nothing less than the actual discharge of the
functions and duties of the office.
o Agras concurrent designations as Acting Secretary of Justice and Acting Solicitor General
did not come within the definition of an ex officio capacity (by virtue of the office or the
official position). Had either of his concurrent designations been in an ex officio capacity
in relation to the other, the Court might now be ruling in his favor.
o The OSG are neither required by the primary functions nor included by the powers of
the DOJMEANING, one position was not derived from the other.