Dennis A. B. Funa (PETITIONER) v EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, SEC. LEANDRO R.

MENDOZA1
USEC. MARIA ELENA H. BAUTISTA, (RESPONDENTS)2
GR NO. 184740
PONENTE: VILLARAMA, JR., J
Issue: Judicial Review

FACTS
 PETITIONER filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under Rule 65 with a prayer for a
temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction to declare as UNCONSITUTIONAL the
designation of RESPONDENT BAUTISTA as OFFICER IN CHARGE OF MARITIME INDUSTRY AUTHORITY.
(MARINA)
 Bautista was appointed during October 4, 2006 as Usec of DOTC. However, on September 1, 2008 the
Administrator of MARINA, Vicente T. Suazo, Bautista was designated as the Officer in Charge, of the
Office of the Administrator of Marina in concurrent capacity as DOTC secretary
Petitioner’s Argument:
 Petitioner argues that Bautista’s concurrent position as Undersecretary of DOTC and Officer in
Charge of Administration of MARINA was unconstitutional according to “Section 13, Article VII
of the 1987 Constitution”3 which “was interpreted and clarified” in the case of Civil Liberties
Union v Executive Secretary.
 Petitioner is also concerned with the possibility that while the case at hand might become moot
and academic through the revocation of the temporary appointment / designation. A SIMILAR
VIOLATION can be committed in the future. Furthermore, petition argues that the issue at hand
is: “capable of repetition, yet evading review”
Respondent’s Argument:
 Respondents argue that the requirements for Judicial Inquiry is not present anymore and that there is
no longer and actual controversy. As respondent Bautista’s appointment was effective on February 2,
2009 and that she relinquished her position as DOTC Usec. for MARINA administrator. Respondents state
that this would make the issue at hand moot and academic thus not necessitating judicial review.
 Respondents also argue that the petitioner has a “ lack of legal standing to bring this suit.” As they
cited standards in the Public Interest Center “party suing as a taxpayer must prove that he has
sufficient interest in preventing illegal expenditure of public funds, and more particularly, his
personal and substantial interest in the case.”

Issue/s
 Whether the case at hand is moot and academic
 Whether Petitioner has the legal standing to bring this suit to the court.
 Whether the concurrent appointment of Respondent Bautista as MARINA Officer in Charge and
Usec. of the DOTC violates Section 13 Article VII of the 1987 constitution.

1
In his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communication
2
in her official capacities as Undersecretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications and as
Officer-in-Charge of the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA),
3Section 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold
any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business,
or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.
 Ruling

 The Supreme Court granted the Petition, therefore the designation of Respondent Bautista as Officer in
Charge of MARINA and her concurrent position of the DOTC as Usec is rendered UNCONSTITUTIONAL for
VIOLATING SEC. 13 ARTICLE 7 OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION as Respondent Bautista is covered under the
prohibition stated in the aforementioned section of the Constitution.
 The supreme court also discussed the Requisites for Judicial Review wherein they stated the following
requisites “The courts’ power of judicial review, like almost all other powers conferred by the
Constitution, is subject to several limitations,”
1. there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;
2. the person challenging the act must have "standing" to challenge; he must have a personal and
substantial interest in the case, such that he has sustained or will sustain, direct injury as a
result of its enforcement;
3. the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity;
4. the issue of constitutionality must be the very ‘lis mota’4 of the case
 Parties are only allowed to litigate when:
1. He can show that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the
allegedly illegal conduct of the government.
2. The injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action
3. The injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action
 The Supreme Court also cited David v Macapagal – Arroyo with regards to the requirements on if a
taxpayer, voter, concerned citizen, and legislators can sue:
1. Cases involve constitutional issues
2. For taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax
measure is unconstitutional
3. For voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of election law in question;
4. For concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental
importance which must be settled early; and
5. For legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes upon their
prerogatives as legislators
 Petitioner had the legal standing as a concerned citizen.
 While the general rule of the court is to decline jurisdiction or dismiss a case due to its mootness,
However, if “supervening events whether intended or actual” cannot prevent the court from rendering a
decision to resolve a constitutional issue that is raised to guide the bench, bar and public.
 In this case the supreme court ruled that the court even with the supervening event making the
issue moot, the issue is still capable of repetition as the issue will arise in every similar
appointment of a Department Undersecretary as OIC to an attached agency.

4
A dispute that has begun and alter forms the basis of a law suit Black's Law 9th Edition, 2009