[G.R. No. 192791, April 24, 2012] DENNIS A. B. FUNA, PETITIONER, VS. T E ! AIR"AN, !O""ISSION ON AUDIT, RE#NA$DO A.

VI$$AR, RESPONDENT. FA!TS% Funa challenges the constitutionality of the appointment of Reynaldo A. Villar as Chairman of the Commission on Audit. Following the retirement of Carague on February 2, 2008 and during the fourth year of Villar as C A Commissioner, Villar was designated as Acting Chairman of C A from February !, 2008 to April "!, 2008. #ubse$uently, on April "8, 2008, Villar was nominated and appointed as Chairman of the C A. #hortly thereafter, on %une "", 2008, the Commission on Appointments confirmed his appointment. &e was to ser'e as Chairman of C A, as e(pressly indicated in the appointment papers, until the e(piration of the original term of his office as C A Commissioner or on February 2, 20"". Challenged in this recourse, Villar, in an ob'ious bid to lend color of title to his hold on the chairmanship, insists that his appointment as C A Chairman accorded him a fresh term of se'en )*+ years which is yet to lapse. &e would argue, in fine, that his term of office, as such chairman, is up to F&'r()r* 2, 201+, or * years rec,oned from February 2, 2008 when he was appointed to that position. -efore the Court could resol'e this petition, Villar, 'ia a letter dated February 22, 20"" addressed to .resident -enigno #. A$uino ///, signified his intention to step down from office upon the appointment of his replacement. 0rue to his word, Villar 'acated his position when .resident -enigno #imeon A$uino /// named 1a. 2racia .ulido30an )Chairman 0an+ C A Chairman. 0his de'elopment has rendered this petition and the main issue tendered therein moot and academic. Although deemed moot due to the inter'ening appointment of Chairman 0an and the resignation of Villar, 4e consider the instant case as falling within the re$uirements for re'iew of a moot and academic case, since it asserts at least four e(ceptions to the mootness rule discussed in 5a'id 's 1acapagal Arroyo namely6 a. b. c. 0here is a gra'e 'iolation of the Constitution7 0he case in'ol'es a situation of e(ceptional character and is of paramount public interest7 0he constitutional issue raised re$uires the formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public7 0he case is capable of repetition yet e'ading re'iew.

d.

0he procedural aspect comes down to the $uestion of whether or not the following re$uisites for the e(ercise of 8udicial re'iew of an e(ecuti'e act obtain in this petition, 'i96 a. b. c. 0here must be an actual case or 8usticiable contro'ersy before the court 0he $uestion before it must be ripe for ad8udication7 0he person challenging the act must be a proper party7 and

d. 0he issue of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity and must be the 'ery litis mota of the
case /##:;#6 a. b. 4 < the petitioner has =ocus #tandi to bring the case to court 4 < Villar>s appointment as C A Chairman, while sitting in that body and after ha'ing ser'ed for four )!+ years of his se'en )*+ year term as C A commissioner, is 'alid in light of the term limitations imposed under, and the circumscribing concepts tuc,ed in, #ec. " )2+, Art. /?)5+ of the Constitution

&;=56

I,,(& o- $o.(, S/)01i6 0his case before us is of transcendental importance, since it ob'iously has @far3reaching implications,A and there is a need to promulgate rules that will guide the bench, bar, and the public in future analogous cases. 4e, thus, assume a liberal stance and allow petitioner to institute the instant petition. /n David vs Macapagal Arroyo, the Court laid out the bare minimum norm before the so3called @non3traditional suitorsA may be e(tended standing to sue, thusly6 a. b. c. d. For taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the ta( measure is unconstitutional7 For voters, there must be a showing of ob'ious interest in the 'alidity of the election law in $uestion For concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled early7 and For legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes their prerogati'es as legislators.

O0 /2& ,(',/)0/i3& i,,(&% #ec. " )2+, Art. /?)5+ of the Constitution pro'ides that6
)2+ 0he !2)ir4)0 )01 !o44i,,io0&r, [o0 A(1i/] shall be )ppoi0/&1 by the .resident with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for ) /&r4 o- ,&3&0 *&)r, 5i/2o(/ r&)ppoi0/4&0/ . f those first appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for se'en years, one commissioner for fi'e years, and the other commissioner for three years, without reappointment. Appoi0/4&0/ /o )0* 3).)0.* ,2)ll '& o0l* -or /2& (0&6pir&1 por/io0 o- /2& /&r4 o- /2& pr&1&.&,,or. /n no case shall any member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.

P&/i/io0&r now asse'erates the 'iew that #ec. ")2+, Art. /?)5+ of the "B8* Constitution proscribes reappointment of any ,ind within the commission, the point being that a second appointment, '& i/ -or /2& ,)4& po,i/io0 7.o44i,,io0&r /o )0o/2&r po,i/io0 o- .o44i,,io0&r8 or (p9r)1&1 po,i/io0 7.o44i,,io0&r /o .2)irp&r,o08 i, ) pro2i'i/&1 r&)ppoi0/4&0/ )01 i, ) 0(lli/* ab initio. 0he Court finds petitioner>s position bereft of merit. 0he flaw lies in regarding the word @reappointmentA as, in conte(t, embracing any and all species of appointment. 0he rule is that if a statute or constitutional pro'ision is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be gi'en its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. 0he first sentence is une$ui'ocal enough. 0he C A Chairman shall be appointed by the .resident for a term of se'en years, and if he has ser'ed the full term, then he can no longer be reappointed or e(tended another appointment. /n the same 'ein, a Commissioner who was appointed for a term of se'en years who li,ewise ser'ed the full term is barred from being reappointed. /n short, once the Chairman or Commissioner shall ha'e ser'ed the full term of se'en years, then he can no longer be reappointed to either the position of Chairman or Commissioner. 0he ob'ious intent of the framers is to pre'ent the president from @dominatingA the Commission by allowing him to appoint an additional or two more commissioners. n the other hand, the pro'ision, on its face, does not prohibit a promotional appointment from commissioner to chairman as long as the commissioner has not ser'ed the full term of se'en years, further $ualified by the third sentence of #ec. ")2+, Article /? )5+ that @the appointment to any 'acancy shall be only for the une(pired portion of the term of the predecessor.A /n addition, such promotional appointment to the position of Chairman must conform to the rotational plan or the staggering of terms in the commission membership such that the aggregate of the ser'ice of the Commissioner in said position and the term to which he will be appointed to the position of Chairman must not e(ceed se'en years so as not to disrupt the rotational system in the commission prescribed by #ec. ")2+, Art. /?)5+. /n conclusion, there is nothing in #ec. ")2+, Article /?)5+ that e(plicitly precludes a promotional appointment from Commissioner to Chairman, pro'ided it is made under the aforestated circumstances or conditions. 0he Court is li,ewise unable to sustain Villar>s proposition that his promotional appointment as C A Chairman ga'e him a completely fresh *3 year termCCfrom February 2008 to February 20"DCCgi'en his four )!+3year tenure as C A commissioner de'alues all the past pronouncements made by this Court. 4hile there had been di'ergence of opinion as to the import of the word @reappointment,A there has been unanimity on the dictum that i0 0o .),& .)0 o0& '& ) !OA 4&4'&r, &i/2&r ), .2)ir4)0 or .o44i,,io0&r, or ) 4i6 o- 'o/2 po,i/io0,, -or )0 )99r&9)/& /&r4 o4or& /2)0 7 *&)r,. A .o0/r)r* 3i&5 5o(l1 )llo5 ) .ir.(43&0/io0 o- /2& )99r&9)/& 7:*&)r ,&r3i.& li4i/)/io0 )01 5o(l1 '& .o0,/i/(/io0)ll* o--&0,i3& ), i/ 5o(l1 5r&); 2)3o. /o /2& ,piri/ o- /2& ro/)/io0)l ,*,/&4 o- ,(..&,,io0. /n net effect, then .resident 1acapagal3Arroyo could not ha'e had, under any circumstance, 'alidly appointed Villar as C A Chairman, for a full *3 year appointment, as the Constitution decrees, was not legally feasible in light of the *3 year aggregate rule. Villar had already ser'ed ! years of his *3year term as C A Commissioner. A shorter term, howe'er, to comply with said rule would also be in'alid as the corresponding appointment would effecti'ely breach the clear purpose of the Constitution of gi'ing to e'ery appointee so appointed subse$uent to the first set of

commissioners, a fi(ed term of office of * years. 0o recapitulate, a C A commissioner li,e respondent Villar who ser'es for a period less than se'en )*+ years cannot be appointed as chairman when such position became 'acant as a result of the e(piration of the *3year term of the predecessor )Carague+. #uch appointment to a full term is not 'alid and constitutional, as the appointee will be allowed to ser'e more than se'en )*+ years under the constitutional ban.

0o sum up, the Court restates its ruling on #ec. ")2+, Art. /?)5+ of the Constitution, 'i96 ". 0he appointment of members of any of the three constitutional commissions, after the e(piration of the une'en terms of office of the first set of commissioners, shall always be for a fi(ed term of se'en )*+ years7 an appointment for a lesser period is 'oid and unconstitutional. 0he appointing authority cannot 'alidly shorten the full term of se'en )*+ years in case of the e(piration of the term as this will result in the distortion of the rotational system prescribed by the Constitution. 2. Appointments to 'acancies resulting from certain causes )death, resignation, disability or impeachment+ shall only be for the une(pired portion of the term of the predecessor, but such appointments cannot be less than the une(pired portion as this will li,ewise disrupt the staggering of terms laid down under #ec. ")2+, Art. /?)5+. E. 1embers of the Commission, e.g. C A, C 1;=;C or C#C, who were appointed for a full term of se'en years and who ser'ed the entire period, are barred from reappointment to any position in the Commission. Corollarily, the first appointees in the Commission under the Constitution are also co'ered by the prohibition against reappointment. !. A commissioner who resigns after ser'ing in the Commission for less than se'en years is eligible for an appointment to the position of Chairman for the une(pired portion of the term of the departing chairman. #uch appointment is not co'ered by the ban on reappointment, pro'ided that the aggregate period of the length of ser'ice as commissioner and the une(pired period of the term of the predecessor will not e(ceed se'en )*+ years and pro'ided further that the 'acancy in the position of Chairman resulted from death, resignation, disability or remo'al by impeachment. 0he Court clarifies that @reappointmentA found in #ec. ")2+, Art. /?)5+ means a mo'ement to one and the same office )Commissioner to Commissioner or Chairman to Chairman+. n the other hand, an appointment in'ol'ing a mo'ement to a different position or office )Commissioner to Chairman+ would constitute a new appointment and, hence, not, in the strict legal sense, a reappointment barred under the Constitution. D. Any member of the Commission cannot be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.