Anda di halaman 1dari 2

FUNA vs.

COA
G.R. No. 192791 (2012)
Ponente: Velasco, Jr.

FACTS:

Reynaldo Villar was appointed as chairman of COA. Funa, in turn, questioned the
constitutionality of the appointment. The events are as follows:

Feb. 2, 2008 - Villar's 4th year as COA commissioner. He was


designated as acting chairman of COA upon Carague's retirement. Villar's term
as acting chair was supposed to be from Feb. 4, 2008 to April 14, 2008.

June 11, 2008 - The Commission on Appointments confirmed


Villar's appointment, and he was to serve as COA Chair until the expiration of his
term of office as COA commissioner, which is on Feb. 2, 2011.

Villar, however, insists that he should be given a fresh term of 7


years as COA Chair. Since he was appointed as Chair in 2008, he should be
allowed to remain in that position until 2015.

This case, however, was rendered moot and academic because


Villar stepped down from the said position in 2011. Consequently, President
Aquino III appointed Ma. Gracia Pulido-Tan as his replacement. Although moot,
the Court proceeded to decide on the case.

ISSUE: W/N Villar's appointment as COA chairman is valid despite the term
limitations imposed in Section 1(2), Article IX-D

HELD:

The provision provides that "The Chairman and Commissioners shall be appointed by
the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of 7
years without reappointment. Of those first appointed, the Chairman shall hold office
for 7 years, one commissioner for 5 years, and the other commissioner for 3 years,

without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired
portion of the term of the predecessor. In no case shall any member be appointed or
designated in a temporary or acting capacity."

The Court held that Villar's appointment is not valid because he has already served the
full 7-year term -- either as Chairman or Commissioner. The intent of the framers is to
prevent the president from dominating the Commission and thus, encroach on its
independence.

CARPIO - CONCURRING AND DISSENTING

Villar's "promotional" appointment as chairman is prohibited by the


Constitution since it actually required another appointment by the President to a
different office, another confirmation by COA, and another oath of office. When
Villar accepted the appointment as Chairman, he had to resign as Commissioner.

Villar's promotion violates the rule on staggered terms.

MENDOZA - CONCURRING AND DISSENTING

It is unfair to an incumbent commissioner who cannot hope to be


promoted in case of expiration of the term of a chairman. This is what SC
provides in the decision, but this is bereft of constitutional basis.

In the case of promotions, the Constitution does not make any


distinction whether the predecessor is a chairman or a mere commissioner.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai