FUNA V.

AGRA
[GR. No. 191644; February 19, 2013]
Facts:
• Funa alleges that on March 1, 2010, Pres. Arroyo appointed Agra as acting DOJ Secretary after
Secretary Devanadera resigned in order to run for Congress.
• Funa also alleges that on March 5, 2010, Pres. Arroyo designated Agra as acting Solicitor General
• Agra states that on January 12, 2010, when he was the Government Corporate Counsel, Pres.
Arroyo designated him as acting Solicitor General and on March 5, 2010, he was appointed as acting DOJ
Secretary

• The Court, in appreciating the facts, stated that despite the conflicting statements of Funa and Agra, Agra has
already admitted holding two offices concurrently in acting capacities, and this is sufficient for the Court to
resolve the constitutional question raised in the case at bar
Issue: Whether or not Agra’s concurrent appointments or designations is unconstitutional for falling under the
prohibition under Section 1 3, Article VII of the 1 987 Constitution?
Held:
In ruling against the constitutionality of the assailed appointments, the Court primarily anchored
on the provisions of Section 13, Article VII of the 1 987 Constitution which expressly 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.
Since the evident purpose of the framers of the 1987 Constitution is to impose a stricter prohibition on the
President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants with respect to holding
multiple offices or employment in the government during their tenure, the exception to this prohibition must be
read with equal severity.
It was of no moment that Agra’s designation was in an acting or temporary capacity. In the language of
Section 13, the Constitution makes no reference to the nature of the appointment or designation. The
prohibition against dual or multiple offices being held by one official must be construed as to apply to all
appointments or designations, whether permanent or temporary.
The Court ruled that being designated as the Acting Secretary of Justice concurrently with his position of
Acting Solicitor General, Agra was undoubtedly covered by the prohibition laid in Section 13, Article VII of
the Constitution.
Neither does the concurrent appointments fall under the two exceptions against the holding of
multiple offices namely, express Constitutional provision allowing the holding of multiple offices and
occupying posts in ex-officio capacities.
The Court, however, clarified that notwithstanding the main ruling in this case, Agra is
considered a de facto officer. Therefore, all official actions of Agra as a de facto Acting Secretary of
Justice were presumed valid, binding and effective as if he was the officer legally appointed and qualified for
the office. This clarification is deemed necessary in order to protect the sanctity of the dealings by the public
with persons whose ostensible authority emanates from the State.