FACTS:

The petitioner filed a petition challenging the designation of Bautista as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of MARINA while concurrently holding the position of Undersecretary for Maritime Transport in the DOTC. The petitioner argues that this violates the constitutional prohibition on dual or multiple offices for Cabinet Members and their deputies. The respondents argue that the appointment of Bautista as MARINA Administrator rendered the petition moot and academic. They also argue that the petitioner lacks legal standing and that Bautista did not receive any salary while serving as MARINA OIC. The respondents further argue that Bautista's designation was temporary to prevent a hiatus in the discharge of official functions and that the two positions are compatible. The petitioner contends that the incompatibility of the positions is irrelevant and that the sole issue to be resolved is whether Bautista's designation violated the constitutional prohibition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioner has standing to challenge the act in question.

2. Whether the resolution of the case has been overtaken by events.

3. Whether or not the appointment or designation of a Cabinet member to an office or employment in an ex-officio capacity violates the prohibition against holding multiple offices or employment under Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.

4. Whether or not the Maritime Administrator has the authority to issue a Certificate of Philippine Registry for all vessels being used in Philippine waters.

5. Whether or not the Maritime Administrator has the power to require any public water transport utility or Philippine flag vessels to provide shipping services to coastal areas in the country.

6. Whether the designation of respondent as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) Administrator of MARINA violated the prohibition on holding multiple offices under Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.

7. Whether the designation of respondent as OIC Administrator of MARINA falls under the definition of appointment or designation.

8. Whether the designation of respondent as Officer-in-Charge of the Maritime Industry Authority, in a concurrent capacity with her position as DOTC Undersecretary for Maritime Transport, is violative of Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.

RULING:

1. The petitioner has standing to sue. The Supreme Court held that taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and legislators may be accorded standing to sue, provided that certain requirements are met. In this case, the petitioner, as a concerned citizen, has alleged a grave violation of the constitutional prohibition against members of the cabinet holding two or more positions in government. Therefore, the petitioner has standing to sue for redress of such illegal act by public officials.

2. The resolution of the case has not been overtaken by events. The Supreme Court ruled that supervening events, whether intended or accidental, cannot prevent the Court from rendering a decision if there is a grave violation of the Constitution. The question of the constitutionality of the President's appointment or designation of a Department Undersecretary as officer-in-charge of an attached agency will arise in every such appointment. Therefore, the mootness of the petition does not bar its resolution.

3. The appointment or designation of a Cabinet member to an office or employment in an ex-officio capacity does not violate the prohibition against holding multiple offices or employment under Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution if it is without additional compensation and required by the primary functions of said office. However, the burden of proof lies on the respondents to demonstrate that the designation was in an ex-officio capacity as required by the primary functions of the office.

4. Yes, the Maritime Administrator has the authority to issue a Certificate of Philippine Registry for all vessels being used in Philippine waters, with exceptions.

5. Yes, the Maritime Administrator has the power to require any public water transport utility or Philippine flag vessels to provide shipping services to coastal areas in the country.

6. The designation of respondent as OIC Administrator of MARINA violated the prohibition on holding multiple offices under Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. The prohibition aims to prevent the concentration of powers in the Executive Department officials, specifically the President, Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies and assistants.

7. The designation of respondent as OIC Administrator of MARINA falls under the definition of appointment rather than designation. While the designation was in the nature of an acting and temporary capacity, the appointee or designate performs the duties and functions of the office. Therefore, the designation is considered a temporary appointment, which does not confer security of tenure on the person named.

8. The designation of the respondent 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 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL for being violative of Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution and therefore, NULL and VOID.

PRINCIPLES:

• The courts' power of judicial review is subject to limitations, including the presence of an actual case or controversy, standing of the person challenging the act, raising of the constitutional issue at the earliest opportunity, and the issue of constitutionality being the lis mota of the case.

• Standing may be accorded to taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and legislators, provided certain requirements are met.

• Supervening events will not prevent the court from rendering a decision if there is a grave violation of the Constitution.

• The writ of prohibition may still be used to decide moot cases if the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review.

• The strict prohibition on holding any other office or employment during the tenure applies to the President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants, as stated in Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.

• Appointive officials are generally prohibited from holding any other office or employment in the government or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, unless otherwise allowed by law or the primary functions of their position, as stated in Section 7, paragraph (2), Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution.

• The history, conditions, and circumstances under which the Constitution was framed should be taken into account when interpreting its provisions.

• The prohibition against holding multiple offices or employment under Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution is absolute and all-embracing for the President and his official family.

• The intent of the 1987 Constitution is to impose stricter prohibitions on the President and his official family due to their exercise of more powers and the possibility of abuse.

• Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution lays down the general rule applicable to all elective and appointive public officials and employees, while Section 13, Article VII is meant to be the exception applicable only to the President, the Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants.

• The exception to the prohibition must be read with equal severity and must be limited to the particular instances cited in the Constitution itself.

• An appointment or designation to an office in an ex-officio capacity does not violate the prohibition if it is without additional compensation and required by the primary functions of the office.

• The burden of proof lies on the respondents to demonstrate that the designation was in an ex-officio capacity as required by the primary functions of the office.

• The Maritime Administrator has the authority to issue a Certificate of Philippine Registry for vessels in Philippine waters, except for certain types of vessels.

• The Maritime Administrator has the power to require shipping services to coastal areas when necessary for the development of the area, emergency sealift requirements, or when public interest requires it.

• The prohibition on holding multiple offices under Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution aims to prevent the concentration of powers in the Executive Department officials.

• Appointment may be defined as the selection of an individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office, while designation connotes the imposition by law of additional duties on an incumbent official. Designation is considered an acting or temporary appointment, which does not confer security of tenure.

• The Constitutional Commission intended to impose a stricter prohibition on the President and his official family in holding other offices or employment. (Sec. 13, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution)

• Public officials in the Executive Department are prohibited from holding multiple offices or employment in the government or elsewhere during their tenure, unless otherwise provided in the Constitution itself. (Sec. 13, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution)

• The intent of the law will be defeated if temporary designations are used to circumvent the constitutional prohibition on holding multiple offices.