Republic of the Philippines designation does not have a maximum duration, it can go on for

SUPREME COURT months or years. In effect, the temporary appointment/designation

Manila can effectively circumvent the prohibition. Allowing undersecretaries or
assistant secretaries to occupy other government posts would open a
Pandora’s Box as to let them feast on choice government positions.
EN BANC
Thus, in case of vacancy where no permanent appointment could as
yet be made, the remedy would be to designate one (1) of the two (2)
G.R. No. 184740               February 11, 2010 Deputy Administrators as the Acting Administrator. Such would be the
logical course, the said officers being in a better position in terms of
DENNIS A. B. FUNA, Petitioner, knowledge and experience to run the agency in a temporary capacity.
vs. Should none of them merit the President’s confidence, then the
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, Office of the practical remedy would be for Undersecretary Bautista to first resign as
President, SEC. LEANDRO R. MENDOZA, in his official capacity Undersecretary in order to qualify her as Administrator of MARINA. As
as Secretary of the Department of Transportation and to whether she in fact does not receive or has waived any
Communications, USEC. MARIA ELENA H. BAUTISTA, in her remuneration, the same does not matter because remuneration is not
official capacities as Undersecretary of the Department of an element in determining whether there has been a violation of
Transportation and Communications and as Officer-in-Charge Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.11
of the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA), Respondents.
Petitioner likewise asserts the incompatibility between the posts of
DECISION DOTC Undersecretary and MARINA Administrator. The reason is that
with respect to the affairs in the maritime industry, the
recommendations of the MARINA may be the subject of counter or
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: opposing recommendations from the Undersecretary for Maritime
Transport. In this case, the DOTC Undersecretary for Maritime
This is a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under Rule Transport and the OIC of MARINA have become one (1) and the same
65 with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or person. There is no more checking and counter-checking of powers
writ of preliminary injunction, to declare as unconstitutional the and functions, and therein lies the danger to the maritime industry.
designation of respondent Undersecretary Maria Elena H. Bautista as There is no longer a person above the Administrator of MARINA who
Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA). will be reviewing the acts of said agency because the person who
should be overseeing MARINA, the Undersecretary for Maritime
Transport, has effectively been compromised. 12
The Antecedents

Finally, petitioner contends that there is a strong possibility in this case

On October 4, 2006, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointed that the challenge herein can be rendered moot through the
respondent Maria Elena H. Bautista (Bautista) as Undersecretary of the expediency of simply revoking the temporary appointment/designation.
Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), vice But since a similar violation can be committed in the future, there
Agustin R. Bengzon. Bautista was designated as Undersecretary for exists a possibility of "evading review," and hence supervening events
Maritime Transport of the department under Special Order No. 2006- should not prevent the Court from deciding cases involving grave
171 dated October 23, 2006.1 violation of the 1987 Constitution, as this Court ruled in Public Interest
Center. Notwithstanding its mootness therefore, should it occur, there
On September 1, 2008, following the resignation of then MARINA is a compelling reason for this case to be decided: the issue raised
Administrator Vicente T. Suazo, Jr., Bautista was designated as Officer- being "capable of repetition, yet evading review."13
in-Charge (OIC), Office of the Administrator, MARINA, in concurrent
capacity as DOTC Undersecretary.2 On the other hand, the respondents argue that the requisites of a
judicial inquiry are not present in this case. In fact, there no longer
On October 21, 2008, Dennis A. B. Funa in his capacity as taxpayer, exists an actual controversy that needs to be resolved in view of the
concerned citizen and lawyer, filed the instant petition challenging the appointment of respondent Bautista as MARINA Administrator effective
constitutionality of Bautista’s appointment/designation, which is February 2, 2009 and the relinquishment of her post as DOTC
proscribed by the prohibition on the President, Vice-President, the Undersecretary for Maritime Transport, which rendered the present
Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies and assistants to hold any petition moot and academic. Petitioner’s prayer for a temporary
other office or employment. restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction is likewise moot and
academic since, with this supervening event, there is nothing left to
enjoin.14
On January 5, 2009, during the pendency of this petition, Bautista was
appointed Administrator of the MARINA vice Vicente T. Suazo, Jr.3 and
she assumed her duties and responsibilities as such on February 2, Respondents also raise the lack of legal standing of petitioner to bring
2009.4 this suit. Clear from the standard set in Public Interest Center is the
requirement that the party suing as a taxpayer must prove that he has
sufficient interest in preventing illegal expenditure of public funds, and
The Case more particularly, his personal and substantial interest in the case.
Petitioner, however, has not alleged any personal or substantial
Petitioner argues that Bautista’s concurrent positions as DOTC interest in this case. Neither has he claimed that public funds were
Undersecretary and MARINA OIC is in violation of Section 13, Article actually disbursed in connection with respondent Bautista’s designation
VII of the 1987 Constitution, as interpreted and explained by this Court as MARINA OIC. It is to be noted that respondent Bautista did not
in Civil Liberties receive any salary while she was MARINA OIC. As to the alleged
transcendental importance of an issue, this should not automatically
confer legal standing on a party.15
Union v. Executive Secretary,5 and reiterated in Public Interest Center,
Inc. v. Elma.6 He points out that while it was clarified in Civil Liberties
Union that the prohibition does not apply to those positions held in ex- Assuming for the sake of argument that the legal question raised
officio capacities, the position of MARINA Administrator is not ex-officio herein needs to be resolved, respondents submit that the petition
to the post of DOTC Undersecretary, as can be gleaned from the should still be dismissed for being unmeritorious considering that
provisions of its charter, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 474,7 as Bautista’s concurrent designation as MARINA OIC and DOTC
amended by Executive Order (EO) No. 125-A.8 Moreover, the Undersecretary was constitutional. There was no violation of Section
provisions on the DOTC in the Administrative Code of 1987, specifically 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution because respondent Bautista
Sections 23 and 24, Chapter 6, Title XV, Book IV do not provide any was merely designated acting head of MARINA on September 1, 2008.
ex-officio role for the undersecretaries in any of the department’s She was designated MARINA OIC, not appointed MARINA
attached agencies. The fact that Bautista was extended an Administrator. With the resignation of Vicente T. Suazo, Jr., the
appointment naming her as OIC of MARINA shows that she does not position of MARINA Administrator was left vacant, and pending the
occupy it in an ex-officio capacity since an ex-officio position does not appointment of permanent Administrator, respondent Bautista was
require any "further warrant or appoint."9 designated OIC in a temporary capacity for the purpose of preventing
a hiatus in the discharge of official functions. Her case thus falls under
the recognized exceptions to the rule against multiple offices, i.e.,
Petitioner further contends that even if Bautista’s appointment or
without additional compensation (she did not receive any emolument
designation as OIC of MARINA was intended to be merely temporary,
as MARINA OIC) and as required by the primary functions of the office.
still, such designation must not violate a standing constitutional
Besides, Bautista held the position for four (4) months only, as in fact
prohibition, citing the rationale in Achacoso v. Macaraig. 10 Section 13,
when she was appointed MARINA Administrator on February 2, 2009,
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution does not enumerate temporariness
she relinquished her post as DOTC Undersecretary for Maritime
as one (1) of the exceptions thereto. And since a temporary
Transport, in acknowledgment of the proscription on the holding of Petitioner having alleged a grave violation of the constitutional
multiple offices.16 prohibition against Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and
assistants holding two (2) or more positions in government, the fact
that he filed this suit as a concerned citizen sufficiently confers him
As to petitioner’s argument that the DOTC Undersecretary for Maritime
with standing to sue for redress of such illegal act by public officials.
Transport and MARINA Administrator are incompatible offices,
respondents cite the test laid down in People v. Green,17 which held
that "[T]he offices must subordinate, one [over] the other, and they The other objection raised by the respondent is that the resolution of
must, per se, have the right to interfere, one with the other, before this case had been overtaken by events considering the effectivity of
they are compatible at common law." Thus, respondents point out that respondent Bautista’s appointment as MARINA Administrator effective
any recommendation by the MARINA Administrator concerning issues February 2, 2009 and her relinquishment of her former position as
of policy and administration go to the MARINA Board and not the DOTC Undersecretary for Maritime Transport.
Undersecretary for Maritime Transport. The Undersecretary for
Maritime Transport is, in turn, under the direct supervision of the
A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable
DOTC Secretary. Petitioner’s fear that there is no longer a person
controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration
above the Administrator of MARINA who will be reviewing the acts of
thereon would be of no practical use or value. Generally, courts decline
said agency (the Undersecretary for Maritime Transport) is, therefore,
jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on ground of
clearly unfounded.18
mootness.24 However, as we held in Public Interest Center, Inc. v.
Elma,25 supervening events, whether intended or accidental, cannot
In his Reply, petitioner contends that respondents’ argument on the prevent the Court from rendering a decision if there is a grave violation
incompatibility of positions was made on the mere assumption that the of the Constitution. Even in cases where supervening events had made
positions of DOTC Undersecretary for Maritime Transport and the the cases moot, this Court did not hesitate to resolve the legal or
administratorship of MARINA are "closely related" and is governed by constitutional issues raised to formulate controlling principles to guide
Section 7, paragraph 2, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution rather the bench, bar, and public.26
than by Section 13, Article VII. In other words, it was a mere
secondary argument. The fact remains that, incompatible or not,
As a rule, the writ of prohibition will not lie to enjoin acts already done.
Section 13, Article VII still does not allow the herein challenged
However, as an exception to the rule on mootness, courts will decide a
designation.19
question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading
review.27 In the present case, the mootness of the petition does not
The sole issue to be resolved is whether or not the designation of bar its resolution. The question of the constitutionality of the
respondent Bautista as OIC of MARINA, concurrent with the position of President’s appointment or designation of a Department
DOTC Undersecretary for Maritime Transport to which she had been Undersecretary as officer-in-charge of an attached agency will arise in
appointed, violated the constitutional proscription against dual or every such appointment.28
multiple offices for Cabinet Members and their deputies and assistants.
Undersecretary Bautista’s designation as MARINA OIC falls under
Our Ruling the stricter prohibition under Section 13, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution.
The petition is meritorious.
Resolution of the present controversy hinges on the correct application
of Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides:
Requisites for Judicial Review

Sec. 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet,

The courts’ power of judicial review, like almost all other powers
and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in
conferred by the Constitution, is subject to several limitations, namely:
this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their
(1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise
tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly practice
of judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must have
any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially
"standing" to challenge; he must have a personal and substantial
interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege
interest in the case, such that he has sustained or will sustain, direct
granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or
injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity;
corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of
and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the
interest in the conduct of their office.
case.20 Respondents assert that the second requisite is absent in this
case.
On the other hand, Section 7, paragraph (2), Article IX-B reads:
Generally, a party will be allowed to litigate only when (1) he can show
that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury Sec. 7. x x x
because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; (2) the
injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is
Unless otherwise allowed by law or the primary functions of his
likely to be redressed by a favorable action.21 The question on standing
position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or
is whether such parties have "alleged such a personal stake in the
employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or
outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so
corporations or their subsidiaries.
largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions."22

In Civil Liberties Union, a constitutional challenge was brought before

In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo,23 summarizing the rules culled from
this Court to nullify EO No. 284 issued by then President Corazon C.
jurisprudence, we held that taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and
Aquino on July 25, 1987, which included Members of the Cabinet,
legislators may be accorded standing to sue, provided that the
undersecretaries and assistant secretaries in its provisions limiting to
following requirements are met:
two (2) the positions that appointive officials of the Executive
Department may hold in government and government corporations.
(1) cases involve constitutional issues; Interpreting the above provisions in the light of the history and times
and the conditions and circumstances under which the Constitution
was framed, this Court struck down as unconstitutional said executive
(2) for taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal
issuance, saying that it actually allows them to hold multiple offices or
disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is
employment in direct contravention of the express mandate of Section
unconstitutional;
13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting them from doing so,
unless otherwise provided in the 1987 Constitution itself.
(3) for voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in
the validity of the election law in question;
Noting that the prohibition imposed on the President and his official
family is all-embracing, the disqualification was held to be absolute, as
(4) for concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the the holding of "any other office" is not qualified by the phrase "in the
issues raised are of transcendental importance which must Government" unlike in Section 13, Article VI prohibiting Senators and
be settled early; and Members of the House of Representatives from holding "any other
office or employment in the Government"; and when compared with
(5) for legislators, there must be a claim that the official other officials and employees such as members of the armed forces
action complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as and civil service employees, we concluded thus:
legislators. [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED.]
These sweeping, all-embracing prohibitions imposed on the President capability for shipbuilding, repair and maintenance; and the
and his official family, which prohibitions are not similarly imposed on development of reservoir of trained manpower;
other public officials or employees such as the Members of Congress,
members of the civil service in general and members of the armed
(b) Provide and help provide the necessary; (i) financial
forces, are proof of the intent of the 1987 Constitution to treat the
assistance to the industry through public and private
President and his official family as a class by itself and to impose upon
financing institutions and instrumentalities; (ii) technological
said class stricter prohibitions.
assistance; and (iii) in general, a favorable climate for
expansion of domestic and foreign investments in shipping
Such intent of the 1986 Constitutional Commission to be stricter with enterprises; and
the President and his official family was also succinctly articulated by
Commissioner Vicente Foz after Commissioner Regalado Maambong
(c) Provide for the effective supervision, regulation and
noted during the floor deliberations and debate that there was no
rationalization of the organizational management, ownership
symmetry between the Civil Service prohibitions, originally found in the
and operations of all water transport utilities, and other
General Provisions and the anticipated report on the Executive
maritime enterprises.31
Department. Commissioner Foz Commented, "We actually have to be
stricter with the President and the members of the Cabinet because
they exercise more powers and, therefore, more checks and restraints The management of MARINA is vested in the Maritime Administrator,
on them are called for because there is more possibility of abuse in who shall be directly assisted by the Deputy Administrator for Planning
their case." and a Deputy Administrator for Operations, who shall be appointed by
the President for a term of six (6) years. The law likewise prescribes
the qualifications for the office, including such "adequate training and
Thus, while all other appointive officials in the civil service are allowed
experience in economics, technology, finance, law, management,
to hold other office or employment in the government during their
public utility, or in other phases or aspects of the maritime industry,"
tenure when such is allowed by law or by the primary functions of their
and he or she is entitled to receive a fixed annual salary.32 The
positions, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants may
Administrator shall be directly responsible to the Maritime Industry
do so only when expressly authorized by the Constitution itself. In
Board, MARINA’s governing body, and shall have powers, functions
other words, Section 7, Article IX-B is meant to lay down the general
and duties as provided in P.D. No. 474, which provides, under Sections
rule applicable to all elective and appointive public officials and
11 and 12, for his or her general and specific functions, respectively,
employees, while Section 13, Article VII is meant to be the exception
as follows:
applicable only to the President, the Vice-President, Members of the
Cabinet, their deputies and assistants.
Sec. 11. General Powers and Functions of the Administrator. — Subject
to the general supervision and control of the Board, the Administrators
xxxx
shall have the following general powers, functions and duties;

Since the evident purpose of the framers of the 1987 Constitution is to

a. To implement, enforce and apply the policies, programs,
impose a stricter prohibition on the President, Vice-President, members
standards, guidelines, procedures, decisions and rules and
of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants with respect to holding
regulations issued, prescribed or adopted by the Board
multiple offices or employment in the government during their tenure,
pursuant to this Decree;
the exception to this prohibition must be read with equal severity. On
its face, the language of Section 13, Article VII is prohibitory so that it
must be understood as intended to be a positive and unequivocal b. To undertake researches, studies, investigations and other
negation of the privilege of holding multiple government offices or activities and projects, on his own initiative or upon
employment. Verily, wherever the language used in the constitution is instructions of the Board, and to submit comprehensive
prohibitory, it is to be understood as intended to be a positive and reports and appropriate recommendations to the Board for
unequivocal negation. The phrase "unless otherwise provided in this its information and action;
Constitution" must be given a literal interpretation to refer only to
those particular instances cited in the Constitution itself, to wit: the c. To undertake studies to determine present and future
Vice-President being appointed as a member of the Cabinet under requirements for port development including navigational
Section 3, par. (2), Article VII; or acting as President in those instances aids, and improvement of waterways and navigable waters
provided under Section 7, pars. (2) and (3), Article VII; and, the in consultation with appropriate agencies;
Secretary of Justice being ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar
Council by virtue of Section 8 (1), Article VIII.29 [EMPHASIS
SUPPLIED.] d. To pursue continuing research and developmental
programs on expansion and modernization of the merchant
fleet and supporting facilities taking into consideration the
Respondent Bautista being then the appointed Undersecretary of needs of the domestic trade and the need of regional
DOTC, she was thus covered by the stricter prohibition under Section economic cooperation schemes; and
13, Article VII and consequently she cannot invoke the exception
provided in Section 7, paragraph 2, Article IX-B where holding another
office is allowed by law or the primary functions of the position. e. To manage the affairs of the Authority subject to the
Neither was she designated OIC of MARINA in an ex-officio capacity, provisions of this Decree and applicable laws, orders, rules
which is the exception recognized in Civil Liberties Union. and regulations of other appropriate government entities.

The prohibition against holding dual or multiple offices or employment Sec. 12. Specific Powers and Functions of the Administrator.  — In
under Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution was held addition to his general powers and functions, the Administrator shall;
inapplicable to posts occupied by the Executive officials specified
therein, without additional compensation in an ex-officio capacity as a. Issue Certificate of Philippine Registry for all vessels being
provided by law and as required by the primary functions of said office. used in Philippine waters, including fishing vessels covered
The reason is that these posts do not comprise "any other office" by Presidential Decree No. 43 except transient civilian
within the contemplation of the constitutional prohibition but are vessels of foreign registry, vessels owned and/or operated
properly an imposition of additional duties and functions on said by the Armed Forces of the Philippines or by foreign
officials.30 Apart from their bare assertion that respondent Bautista did governments for military purposes, and bancas, sailboats
not receive any compensation when she was OIC of MARINA, and other watercraft which are not motorized, of less than
respondents failed to demonstrate clearly that her designation as such three gross tons;
OIC was in an ex-officio capacity as required by the primary functions
of her office as DOTC Undersecretary for Maritime Transport.
b. Provide a system of assisting various officers,
professionals, technicians, skilled workers and seamen to be
MARINA was created by virtue of P.D. No. 474 issued by President gainfully employed in shipping enterprises, priority being
Ferdinand E. Marcos on June 1, 1974. It is mandated to undertake the given to domestic needs;
following:

c. In collaboration and coordination with the Department of

(a) Adopt and implement a practicable and coordinated Labor, to look into, and promote improvements in the
Maritime Industry Development Program which shall include, working conditions and terms of employment of the officers
among others, the early replacement of obsolescent and and crew of vessels of Philippine registry, and of such
uneconomic vessels; modernization and expansion of the officers and crew members who are Philippine citizens and
Philippine merchant fleet, enhancement of domestic employed by foreign flag vessels, as well as of personnel of
other shipping enterprises, and to assist in the settlement of
 disputes between the shipowners and ship operators and Maritime Industry Board, which includes the DOTC Secretary as
such officers and crew members and between the owner or Chairman, the MARINA Administrator as Vice-Chairman, and the
manager of other shipping enterprises and their personnel; following as members: Executive Secretary (Office of the President),
Philippine Ports Authority General Manager, Department of National
Defense Secretary, Development Bank of the Philippines General
d. To require any public water transport utility or Philippine
Manager, and the Department of Trade and Industry Secretary.34
flag vessels to provide shipping services to any coastal areas
in the country where such services are necessary for the
development of the area, to meet emergency sealift Finally, the Court similarly finds respondents’ theory that being just a
requirements, or when public interest so requires; "designation," and temporary at that, respondent Bautista was never
really "appointed" as OIC Administrator of MARINA, untenable. In
Binamira v. Garrucho, Jr.,35 we distinguished between the terms
e. Investigate by itself or with the assistance of other
appointment and designation, as follows:
appropriate government agencies or officials, or experts
from the private sector, any matter within its jurisdiction,
except marine casualties or accidents which shall be Appointment may be defined as the selection, by the authority vested
undertaken by the Philippine Coast Guard; with the power, of an individual who is to exercise the functions of a
given office. When completed, usually with its confirmation, the
appointment results in security of tenure for the person chosen unless
f. Impose, fix, collect and receive in accordance with the
he is replaceable at pleasure because of the nature of his office.
schedules approved by the Board, from any shipping
Designation, on the other hand, connotes merely the imposition by law
enterprise or other persons concerned, such fees and other
of additional duties on an incumbent official, as where, in the case
charges for the payment of its services;
before us, the Secretary of Tourism is designated Chairman of the
Board of Directors of the Philippine Tourism Authority, or where, under
g. Inspect, at least annually, the facilities of port and cargo the Constitution, three Justices of the Supreme Court are designated
operators and recommend measures for adherence to by the Chief Justice to sit in the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate or the
prescribed standards of safety, quality and operations; House of Representatives. It is said that appointment is essentially
executive while designation is legislative in nature.
h. Approve the sale, lease or transfer of management of
vessels owned by Philippine Nationals to foreign owned or Designation may also be loosely defined as an appointment because it
controlled enterprises; likewise involves the naming of a particular person to a specified public
office. That is the common understanding of the term. However, where
i. Prescribe and enforce rules and regulations for the the person is merely designated and not appointed, the implication is
prevention of marine pollution in bays, harbors and other that he shall hold the office only in a temporary capacity and may be
navigable waters of the Philippines, in coordination with the replaced at will by the appointing authority. In this sense, the
government authorities concerned; designation is considered only an acting or temporary appointment,
which does not confer security of tenure on the person
named.36 [emphasis supplied.]
j. Establish and maintain, in coordination with the
appropriate government offices and agencies, a system of
regularly and promptly producing, collating, analyzing and Clearly, respondents’ reliance on the foregoing definitions is misplaced
disseminating traffic flows, port operations, marine insurance considering that the above-cited case addressed the issue of whether
services and other information on maritime matters; petitioner therein acquired valid title to the disputed position and so
had the right to security of tenure. It must be stressed though that
while the designation was in the nature of an acting and temporary
k. Recommend such measures as may be necessary for the capacity, the words "hold the office" were employed. Such holding of
regulation of the importation into and exportation from the office pertains to both appointment and designation because the
Philippines of vessels, their equipment and spare parts; appointee or designate performs the duties and functions of the office.
The 1987 Constitution in prohibiting dual or multiple offices, as well as
l. Implement the rules and regulations issued by the Board incompatible offices, refers to the holding of the office, and not to the
of Transportation; nature of the appointment or designation, words which were not even
found in Section 13, Article VII nor in Section 7, paragraph 2, Article
IX-B. To "hold" an office means to "possess or occupy" the same, or
m. Compile and codify all maritime laws, orders, rules and "to be in possession and administration,"37 which implies nothing less
regulations, decisions in leasing cases of courts and the than the actual discharge of the functions and duties of the
Authority’s procedures and other requirements relative to office.1avvphi1
shipping and other shipping enterprises, make them
available to the public, and, whenever practicable to publish
such materials; The disqualification laid down in Section 13, Article VII is aimed at
preventing the concentration of powers in the Executive Department
officials, specifically the President, Vice-President, Members of the
n. Delegate his powers in writing to either of the Deputy Cabinet and their deputies and assistants. Civil Liberties Union traced
Administrators or any other ranking officials of the the history of the times and the conditions under which the
Authority; Provided, That he informs the Board of such Constitution was framed, and construed the Constitution consistent
delegation promptly; and with the object sought to be accomplished by adoption of such
provision, and the evils sought to be avoided or remedied. We recalled
o. Perform such other duties as the Board may assign, and the practice, during the Marcos regime, of designating members of the
such acts as may be necessary and proper to implement this Cabinet, their deputies and assistants as members of the governing
Decree. bodies or boards of various government agencies and
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
corporations. This practice of holding multiple offices or positions in
With the creation of the Ministry (now Department) of Transportation the government led to abuses by unscrupulous public officials, who
and Communications by virtue of EO No. 546, MARINA was attached to took advantage of this scheme for purposes of self-enrichment. The
the DOTC for policy and program coordination on July 23, 1979. Its blatant betrayal of public trust evolved into one of the serious causes
regulatory function was likewise increased with the issuance of EO No. of discontent with the Marcos regime. It was therefore quite inevitable
1011 which abolished the Board of Transportation and transferred the and in consonance with the overwhelming sentiment of the people that
quasi-judicial functions pertaining to water transportation to MARINA. the 1986 Constitutional Commission would draft into the proposed
On January 30, 1987, EO No. 125 (amended by EO No. 125-A) was Constitution the provisions under consideration, which were envisioned
issued reorganizing the DOTC. The powers and functions of the to remedy, if not correct, the evils that flow from the holding of
department and the agencies under its umbrella were defined, further multiple governmental offices and employment.38 Our declaration in
increasing the responsibility of MARINA to the industry. Republic Act that case cannot be more explicit:
No. 9295, otherwise known as the "The Domestic Shipping
Development Act of 2004,"33 further strengthened MARINA’s regulatory
powers and functions in the shipping sector. But what is indeed significant is the fact that although Section 7,
Article IX-B already contains a blanket prohibition against the holding
of multiple offices or employment in the government subsuming both
Given the vast responsibilities and scope of administration of the elective and appointive public officials, the Constitutional Commission
Authority, we are hardly persuaded by respondents’ submission that should see it fit to formulate another provision, Sec. 13, Article VII,
respondent Bautista’s designation as OIC of MARINA was merely an specifically prohibiting the President, Vice-President, members of the
imposition of additional duties related to her primary position as DOTC Cabinet, their deputies and assistants from holding any other office or
Undersecretary for Maritime Transport. It appears that the DOTC
Undersecretary for Maritime Transport is not even a member of the
employment during their tenure, unless otherwise provided in the
Constitution itself.

Evidently, from this move as well as in the different phraseologies of

the constitutional provisions in question, the intent of the framers of
the Constitution was to impose a stricter prohibition on the President
and his official family in so far as holding other offices or employment
in the government or elsewhere is concerned.39 [emphasis supplied.]

Such laudable intent of the law will be defeated and rendered sterile if
we are to adopt the semantics of respondents. It would open the
veritable floodgates of circumvention of an important constitutional
disqualification of officials in the Executive Department and of
limitations on the President’s power of appointment in the guise of
temporary designations of Cabinet Members, undersecretaries and
assistant secretaries as officers-in-charge of government agencies,
instrumentalities, or government-owned or controlled corporations.

As to respondents’ contention that the concurrent positions of DOTC

Undersecretary for Maritime Transport and MARINA OIC Administrator
are not incompatible offices, we find no necessity for delving into this
matter. Incompatibility of offices is irrelevant in this case, unlike in the
case of PCGG Chairman Magdangal Elma in Public Interest Center, Inc.
v. Elma.40 Therein we held that Section 13, Article VII is not applicable
to the PCGG Chairman or to the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel, as he
is not a cabinet member, undersecretary or assistant secretary.41

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The designation of respondent

Ma. Elena H. Bautista as Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Administrator,
Maritime Industry Authority, in a concurrent capacity with her position
as DOTC Undersecretary for Maritime Transport, is hereby declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL for being violative of Section 13, Article VII of
the 1987 Constitution and therefore, NULL and VOID.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.