Sana v. Career Executive Service Board

G.R. No. 192926 (November 15, 2011)

Facts:

On May 28, 2010, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 883 (EO 883), which granted the rank of Career Executive Service Officer (CESO) III or higher to government officers and employees occupying legal positions in the executive branch, provided they had obtained graduate degrees in law and successfully passed the bar examinations. EO 883 cited previous executive orders that allowed the granting of CESO rank to personnel who completed certain graduate programs as a basis for extending similar benefits to government lawyers.

On June 2, 2010, the Career Executive Service Board (CESB) issued Resolution No. 870, asserting that there was no legal impediment for the President to grant CESO rank during the constitutional ban on midnight appointments. The CESB argued that the appointment to a CES rank was not equivalent to an appointment to a position in the legal sense, as it merely completed a previous appointment without conferring new authority.

Subsequently, the CESB recommended to President Arroyo the vesting of CESO rank to 13 officials from various government departments, which she approved on June 10, 2010.

On July 30, 2010, President Benigno S. Aquino III issued Executive Order No. 3 (EO 3), which expressly revoked EO 883 and all related administrative orders that conflicted with it. The revocation was based on the assertion that EO 883 encroached upon the CESB's authority to promulgate rules regarding the selection and classification of members of the Career Executive Service.

On August 4, 2010, Atty. Elias Omar A. Sana filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, arguing that EO 883 and the appointments made under it were void due to the constitutional ban on midnight appointments as outlined in Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution. He contended that the CESB's interpretation of the terms "appoint" and "appointment" was an attempt to circumvent the constitutional prohibition.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether EO 883 and CESB Resolution No. 870 violated the constitutional ban on midnight appointments under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution.
2. Whether the issue became moot following the issuance of EO 3, which revoked EO 883.

Arguments:

• Petitioner (Atty. Sana):

  • Argued that the appointments made under EO 883 were executive in nature and thus fell under the prohibition of midnight appointments.
  • Contended that the CESB's distinction between "appoint" and "appointment" was an improper interpretation of the law and the Constitution.

• Respondents (CESB and OSG):

  • The CESB argued that the petition should be dismissed as moot due to the revocation of EO 883 by EO 3.
  • They maintained that the vesting of CESO rank was not an appointment to a position but merely a completion of a previous appointment, thus not violating the midnight appointment ban.
  • The OSG supported the CESB's position, asserting that even if EO 883 were valid, it did not automatically confer CESO rank to lawyers.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the grounds of mootness. The Court noted that since EO 3 had already revoked EO 883 and CESB Resolution No. 870, there was no longer any legal basis to review the constitutionality of these issuances. The Court emphasized the requirement of a case and controversy for judicial review, stating that the issues raised by the petitioner were rendered moot by the subsequent actions of the President.

The Court acknowledged that while it had previously relaxed the case and controversy requirement in certain instances, the circumstances of this case did not warrant such an exception. The question of whether an appointment to a CESO rank constituted an "appointment" under the constitutional ban could still be addressed in future cases, as it was not likely to evade judicial review.

The Court also pointed out that the petitioner had not demonstrated any personal injury or violation of rights resulting from EO 883, as he was not among the officials granted CESO rank.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. The principle that the Court will not entertain cases that have become moot due to subsequent actions that nullify the subject of the controversy.
2. Clarification on the distinction between "appointment" and "vesting of rank," particularly in the context of the constitutional ban on midnight appointments.
3. The reaffirmation of the requirement for a case and controversy as a precondition for judicial review, emphasizing the need for actual legal rights to be at stake.