Sana v. Career Executive Service Board
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 883 (EO 883) granting Career Executive Service Officer (CESO) rank to eligible lawyers in the executive branch who possess graduate degrees in law and have passed the bar examinations. Subsequently, the Career Executive Service Board (CESB) issued Resolution No. 870, opining that granting CESO rank is not an appointment subject to the constitutional ban on midnight appointments. The CESB then recommended 13 officials, including three CESB members, for CESO rank, and President Arroyo appointed them. Procedural History: Petitioner Atty. Elias Omar A. Sana filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, assailing EO 883 and CESB Resolution No. 870 for violating the constitutional ban on midnight appointments. The Petition: Petitioner contended that appointments to CES positions and ranks are executive in nature and thus fall under the prohibition of Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution. He argued that CESB Resolution No. 870 circumvented the constitutional ban by distinguishing between 'appoint' and 'appointment'.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition has been rendered moot by the subsequent issuance of Executive Order No. 3 revoking Executive Order No. 883. Whether Executive Order No. 883 and CESB Resolution No. 870 violated Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution (ban on midnight appointments).
Ruling
The Court dismissed the petition on the threshold ground of mootness. The Court held that since President Benigno S. Aquino III issued Executive Order No. 3, which expressly revoked Executive Order No. 883 and impliedly revoked CESB Resolution No. 870, the assailed issuances had ceased to have any force and effect. Consequently, there was no longer a justiciable controversy requiring the Court to pass upon the validity of these issuances. The Court emphasized that judicial review requires an actual case or controversy, and to rule on the merits would transgress this requirement, especially since the petitioner did not allege any personal prejudice or violation of his rights, and no conferment of CESO rank was actually made by President Arroyo in relation to EO 883.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of mootness: The Court held that the petition was moot because President Aquino's issuance of Executive Order No. 3 expressly revoked Executive Order No. 883 and implicitly revoked CESB Resolution No. 870. Since the assailed issuances no longer had any force and effect, the Court found no reason to delve into their merits or pass upon their validity. The Court reiterated that judicial review is predicated on the existence of an actual case or controversy, which is absent when the issues have been rendered moot by subsequent events. The Court noted that while it may relax this requirement for issues of public importance capable of repetition yet evading review, such factors were not present in this case. The question of whether an appointment to a CESO rank constitutes an 'appointment' for purposes of the midnight appointment ban could be decided even outside the ban period, and the petitioner did not demonstrate any personal prejudice suffered from the assailed issuances. The Court further highlighted that the CESB itself stated that no conferment of CESO rank was actually made by President Arroyo in relation to EO 883, reinforcing the lack of actual prejudice to the petitioner. On the alleged violation of the constitutional ban on midnight appointments: Although the Court dismissed the petition on mootness, it implicitly acknowledged the petitioner's argument regarding the constitutional ban. The petitioner's contention was that EO 883 and the subsequent appointments to CESO rank were void for violating Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution. The petitioner theorized that appointments to positions and ranks in the CES are executive in nature and, if made within the prohibited period, fall under the constitutional prohibition. The petitioner also argued that CESB Resolution No. 870 attempted to circumvent the constitutional ban by distinguishing between 'appoint' and 'appointment,' which he contended could not alter the meaning of laws and the Constitution. The CESB, in its defense, argued that appointment to a CESO rank is not equivalent to an appointment to a position in the legal sense, as it does not confer authority to exercise the functions of an office but is merely a completion of a previous appointment. The Office of the Solicitor General, while joining the CESB in praying for dismissal due to mootness, alternatively argued that EO 883 was unconstitutional for violating Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution.
Main Doctrine
A case is rendered moot and will be dismissed if the issues raised have been rendered moot by subsequent events, such as the revocation of the assailed executive order, and the petitioner has not suffered any direct prejudice.