Prohibition Against Holding of

Dual or Multiple Offices Apply As

Well To Temporary Designations
(Funa vs Agra, 2013)
Funa vs Agra
Case Digest GR 191644 Feb 19 2013
Facts:
Agra was then the Government Corporate Counsel when Pres Arroyo designated him as the Acting
Solicitor General in place of former Sol Gen Devanadera, who has been appointed as the Secretary
of Justice. Again, Agra was designated as the Acting Secretary in place of Secretary Devanadera
when the latter resigned. Agra then relinquished his position as Corporate Counsel and continued to
perform the duties of an Acting Solicitor General.
Funa, a concerned citizen, questioned his appointment. Agra argued that his concurrent
designations were merely in atemporary capacity. Even assuming that he was holding multiple
offices at the same time, his designation as an Acting Sol Gen is merely akin to a hold-over, so that
he never received salaries and emoluments for being the Acting Sol Gen when he was appointed as
the Acting Secretary of Justice.
Issue 1: W/N Agras designation as Acting Secretary of Justice is valid
No. The designation of Agra as Acting Secretary of Justice concurrently with his position of Acting
Solicitor General violates the constitutional prohibition under Article VII, Section 13 of the 1987
Constitution.
It is immaterial that Agras designation was in an acting or temporary capacity. Section 13 plainly
indicates that the intent of the Framers of the Constitution is to impose a stricter prohibition on the
President and the Cabinet Members in so far as holding other offices or employments in the
Government or in GOCCs is concerned. 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, because the objective of Section 13 is to prevent the concentration of powers in
the Executive Department officials, specifically the President, the Vice-President, the Cabinet
Members and their deputies and assistants.

Issue 2: W/N Agra may concurrently hold the positions by virtue of the hold-over principle
No. Agras designation as the Acting Secretary of Justice was not in an ex officio capacity, by which
he would have been validly authorized to concurrently hold the two positions due to the holding of
one office being the consequence of holding the other.
Being included in the stricter prohibition embodied in Section 13, Agra cannot liberally apply in his
favor the broad exceptions provided in Article IX-B, Sec 7 (2) of the Constitution to justify his
designation as Acting Secretary of Justice concurrently with his designation as Acting Solicitor
General, or vice versa. It is not sufficient for Agra to show that his holding of the other office was
allowed by law or the primary functions of his position. To claim the exemption of his concurrent
designations from the coverage of the stricter prohibition under Section 13, he needed to establish
that his concurrent designation was expressly allowed by the Constitution.
Issue 3: W/N the offices of the Solicitor General and Secretary of Justice is in an ex officio capacity
in relation to the other

No. The powers and functions of the Solicitor General are neither required by the primary functions
nor included in the powers of the DOJ, and vice versa. The OSG, while attached to the DOJ, is not a
constituent of the latter, as in fact, the Administrative Code of 1987 decrees that the OSG is
independent and autonomous. With the enactment of RA 9417, the Solicitor General is now vested
with a cabinet rank, and has the same qualifications for appointment, rank, prerogatives, allowances,
benefits and privileges as those of Presiding Judges of the Court of Appeals. #