1. Forbes, Harding, Trowbridge vs.

Chuoco Tiaco, Crossfiled Presidential immunity from suit; president is immune from civil liability and may not be sued during his tenure. Facts: This is an original action commenced in this court to secure a writ of prohibition against the Hon. A. S. Crossfield, as one of the udges of the Court of !irst "nstan#e of the #ity of $anila, to prohibit him from taking or continuing jurisdiction in a certain case commenced and PE !" # before him in whi#h Chuo#o Tia#o %respondent herein& is plaintiff, and '. Cameron !orbes, (. ). Harding, and C. *. Trowbridge %petitioners herein& are defendants. The plaintiffs are $. Cameron Forbes is the #overnor%#eneral of the Philippine "slands and CH")! +! P+,"C) &. E. 'arding and CH")! +! TH) S)C*)T S)*-"C) of the #ity of $anila C. (. Trowbridge. .efendant A. S. Crossfield is one of the udges of the Court of !irst "nstan#e of the #ity of $anila. .efendant Chuoco Tiaco is a foreigner of Chinese nationality and a resident of the Philippine "slands for the last )* years having a family in the country and some properties. Chuoco Tiaco filed a case for !+,+#E%monetary& alleging that defendants forcibly deported the plaintiff to China and forcibly prevented his return for some months in violation of the right of the said plaintiff herein to be and to remain in the Philippine "slands as established by law. Crossfield issued an " '"."T"/ against Forbes et al from spelling or deporting or threatening to e/pel or deport Chuo#o Tia#o. Forbes0 'arding0 and Trowbridge sued for writs of prohibition against the judge and the respective plaintiffs, alleging that the e1pulsion was carried out in the public interest and at the re2uest of the proper representative of the Chinese government in the Philippines, and was immediately reported to the Se#retary of 'ar. The #omplaints were demurred to, but the Supreme Court overruled the demurrers, granted the prohibition, and ordered the a#tions dismissed. The udge, having de#lined to oin in the appli#ations for writs of error, was made a respondent, and the cases are here on the ground that the plaintiffs have been deprived of liberty without due process of law . "ssue: '+0 the 1overnor 1eneral, as Chief )/e#utive, #an be sued in a #ivil a#tion. (uling: The prin#iple of nonliability, as herein enun#iated, does not mean that the udi#iary has no authority to tou#h the a#ts of the 1overnor21eneral; that he

may, under #over of his offi#e, do what he will, unimpeded and restrained. Su#h a #onstru#tion would mean that tyranny, under the guise of the e/e#ution of the law, #ould wal3 defiantly abroad, destroying rights of person and of property, wholly free from interferen#e of #ourts or legislatures. This does not mean, either, that a person in ured by the e/e#utive authority by an a#t un ustifiable under the law has no remedy, but must submit in silen#e. +n the #ontrary, it means, simply, that T'E #/3E( /(%#E E(+40 4"5E T'E &6!#E- /F T'E C/6(T- + ! T'E ,E,.E(- /F T'E 4E#"-4+T6(E0 ,+7 /T .E PE(-/ +447 ,64CTE! " C"3"4 !+,+#E- F/( T'E C/ -E86E CE- /F + E9EC6TE! " T'E PE(F/(,+ CE /F '"- /FF"C"+4 !6T"E- . The udi#iary has full power to, and will, when the matter is properly presented to it and the o##asion ustly warrants it, de#lare an a#t of the 1overnor21eneral illegal and void and pla#e as nearly as possible in status 4uo any person who has been deprived of his liberty or his property by su#h a#t. This remedy is assured every person, however humble or of whatever #ountry, when his personal or property rights have been invaded, even by the highest authority of the state. The thing which the judiciary can not do is to mulct the #overnor%#eneral personally in damages which result from the performance of his official duty, any more than it #an a member of the Philippine Commission or the Philippine Assembly. Publi# poli#y forbids it.

either does this principle of nonliability mean that the chief e1ecutive may not be personally sued at all in relation to acts which he claims to perform as such official. +n the #ontrary, it #learly appears from the dis#ussion heretofore had, parti#ularly that portion whi#h tou#hed the liability of udges and drew an analogy between su#h liability and that of the 1overnor2 1eneral, that the latter is liable when he a#ts in a #ase so plainly outside of his power and authority that he #an not be said to have e/er#ised dis#retion in determining whether or not he had the right to a#t. $'+T "- 'E4! 'E(E "T'+T 'E $"44 .E P(/TECTE! F(/, PE(-/ +4 4"+."4"T7 F/( !+,+#E/T / 47 $'E 'E +CT- $"T'" '"- +6T'/("T70 .6T +4-/ $'E 'E "- $"T'/6T +6T'/("T70 P(/3"!E! 'E +CT6+447 6-E! !"-C(ET"/ + ! &6!#,E T0 T'+T "-0 T'E &6!"C"+4 F+C64T70 " !ETE(," " # $'ET'E( 'E '+! +6T'/("T7 T/ +CT /( /T . "n other words, he is entitled to protection in determining the 2uestion of his authority. "f he decide wrongly0 he is still protected provided the 2uestion of his authority was one over which two men0 reasonably 2ualified for that position0 might honestly differ: but he is not protected if the lack of authority to act is so plain that two such men could not honestly differ over its determination . "n su#h a #ase, he a#ts, not as 1overnor21eneral, but as a private individual, and, as su#h, must answer for the #onse4uen#es of his a#t.

;. In Re: Saturnino Bermudez (G.R. No. 76180 )

Immunity from Suits Facts: This is a petition for declaratory relief filed by the petitioner Bermudez seeking for the clarification of Sec. 5, Art. 18 of the proposed 1 8! "onstitution, as #uoted$ Sec. 5. The si%&year term of the incumbent 'resident and (ice&'resident elected in the )ebruary *, 1 8! election is, for purposes of synchronization of elections, hereby e%tended to noon of +une ,-, 1 .. The first regular elections for the 'resident and (ice&'resident under this "onstitution shall be held on the second /onday of /ay, 1 .. 'etitioner sought the aid of the "ourt to determine as to 0hom bet0een the incumbent 'res. A#uino and (' 1aurel and elected 'res. /arcos and (' Tolentino the said pro2ision refers to. Issue: 3hether the "ourt should entertain the petition for declaratory relief4 He d: 5t is elementary that this "ourt assumes no 6urisdiction o2er petitions for declaratory relief. 78ote$ 9:" pro2ides that the 6urisdiction for petitions for declaratory relief is 0ith the 9T" ; /ore importantly, the petition amounts in effect to a suit against the incumbent 'resident of the 9epublic, 'resident "orazon ". A#uino, and it is e#ually elementary that incumbent 'residents are immune from suit or from being brought to court during the period of their incumbency and tenure. 5t being a matter of public record and common public kno0ledge that the "onstitutional "ommission refers therein to incumbent 'resident "orazon ". A#uino and (ice&'resident Sal2ador <. 1aurel, and to no other persons, and pro2ides for the e%tension of their term to noon of +une ,-, 1 . for purposes of synchronization of election !. "strada #s. $esierto %&se $i'est F&%(S: The petitioner +oseph =6ercito =strada alleges that he is the 'resident on lea2e 0hile respondent >loria /acapagal&Arroyo claims she is the 'resident. 5n the /ay 11, 1 8 elections, petitioner +oseph =6ercito =strada 0as elected 'resident 0hile respondent >loria /acapagal&Arroyo 0as elected (ice&'resident. Both petitioner and the respondent 0ere to ser2e a si%&year term commencing on +une ,-, 1 8. 'etitioner 0as plagued by a plethora of problems$ ?5locos Sur >o2ernos, 1uis @"ha2itA Singson, 0ent on air and accused the petitioner, his family and friends of recei2ing millions of pesos from 6ueteng lordsB, ?Senator Teofisto >uingona +r, deli2ered a fiery pri2ilege speech entitled @5 Accuse.A <e accused the petitioner of recei2ing some '..- million in 6ueteng money from >o2ernor Singson and <e also charged that the petitioner took from >o2ernor Singson '*- million on e%cise ta% on cigarettes intended for 5locos Sur.B. Archbishop +aime "ardinal Sin, the "atholic Bishops "onference of the 'hilippines, the late 'resident "orazon A#uino, former 'resident 9amos and respondent Arroyo ask for the petitionerCs resignation ho0e2er, the petitioner refused to resign.

The heat goes, the impeachment trial started, the day to day trial 0as co2ered li2e T(, the trial later on ad6ourned in the sprit of "hristmas. As the day goes, the Armed )orces of the 'hilippines defected, 0ithdra0ing their support to the go2ernment, many people rallied asking for the petitionerCs resignation. :n +an .-, .-11, 1.$-- noon, petitioner turned to surrender. 5t also appears that on the same day, +anuary .-, .--1, he signed the follo0ing letter$ @Sir$ By 2irtue of the pro2isions of Section 11, Article (55 of the "onstitution, 5 am hereby transmitting this declaration that 5 am unable to e%ercise the po0ers and duties of my office. By operation of la0 and the "onstitution, the (ice&'resident shall be the Acting 'resident. 7Sgd.; +:S='< =+=9"5T: =ST9ADAA Issue: 3hether or not the petitioner +oseph @=rapA =6ercito =strada is permanently unable to act as 'resident. He d: Ees. The petitioner +oseph =6ercito =strada is permanently unable to act as 'resident. Section 11 of Article (55 pro2ides that @"ongress has the ultimate authority under the "onstitution to determine 0hether the 'resident is incapable of performing his functions.A Both houses of "ongress ha2e recognized respondent Arroyo as the 'resident. The <ouse of 9epresentati2e passed on +anuary .F, .--1 <ouse 9esolution 8o. l*5 0hich states$ @9esolution e%pressing the Support of the <ouse of 9epresentati2es to the assumption into office by (ice 'resident >loria /acapagal&Arroyo as 'resident of the 9epublic of the 'hilippines, e%tending its congratulation and e%pressing its support for her administration as a partner in the attainment of nationCs goal under the "onstitution.A The Senate also passed Senate 9esolution 8o. 8. 0hich states$ @9esolution confirming 'resident >loria /acapagal&ArroyoCs nomination of Senator Teofisto T. >uingona, +r. as the (ice 'resident of the 9epublic of the 'hilippines.A Gnconditionally clear in that recognition is the assertion that the inability of petitioner =strada is no longer temporary. "ongress has clearly re6ected petitionerCs claim of inability. =2en if petitioner can pro2e that he did not resign, still, he cannot successfully claim that he is a 'resident on lea2e on the ground that he is merely unable to go2ern temporarily. That claim has been laid to rest by "ongress and the decision that respondent Arroyo is the de 6ure 'resident made by a co&e#ual branch of go2ernment cannot be re2ie0ed by the Supreme "ourt.

). G*+RI& #s %& G.R. No. 11,,0! (&u'ust 1-. /000) )A"TS$ Gpon recommendation by the Secretary of =ducation, "ulture and Sports, respondent 0as reassigned as superintendent in another school. 9espondent filed a petition for prohibition against the Secretary on the ground that his indefinite reassignment 2iolated his security of tenure. The Secretary argued that the filing of the case 2iolated the immunity of the 'resident from suit. <=1D$ The contention is untenable. The petition is not directed against the 'resident. 'residential decisions may be #uestioned before the courts.

<.

eri vs -enate Committee on +ccountability of Public /fficers

Executive Privilege

:n .1 April .--*, D:T" entered into a contract 0ith Hhong Iing Telecommunications =#uipment 7HT=; for the supply of e#uipment and ser2ices for the 8ational Broadband 8et0ork 78B8; 'ro6ect in the amount of J,. ,F81,. -.-- 7appro%imately '1! Billion 'esos;. The 'ro6ect 0as to be financed by the '9". The Senate passed 2arious resolutions relati2e to the 8B8 deal. :n the other hand, De (enecia issued a statement that se2eral high e%ecuti2e officials and po0er brokers 0ere using their influence to push the appro2al of the 8B8 'ro6ect by the 8=DA. 8eri, the head of 8=DA, 0as then in2ited to testify before the Senate Blue 9ibbon. <e appeared in one hearing 0herein he 0as interrogated for 11 hrs and during 0hich he admitted that Abalos of ":/=1=" tried to bribe him 0ith '.--/ in e%change for his appro2al of the 8B8 pro6ect. <e further narrated that he informed 'resident Arroyo about the bribery attempt and that she instructed him not to accept the bribe. <o0e2er, 0hen probed further on 0hat they discussed about the 8B8 'ro6ect, petitioner refused to ans0er, in2oking @e%ecuti2e pri2ilegeA. 5n particular, he refused to ans0er the #uestions on 7a; 0hether or not 'resident Arroyo follo0ed up the 8B8 'ro6ect, 7b; 0hether or not she directed him to prioritize it, and 7c; 0hether or not she directed him to appro2e. <e later refused to attend the other hearings and =rmita sent a letter to the S9B" a2erring that the communications bet0een >/A and 8eri is pri2ileged and that the 6urisprudence laid do0n in Senate 2s =rmita be applied. The S9B" cited 8eri for contempt. ISS0": 3hether or not the three #uestions sought by the S9B" to be ans0ered falls under e%ecuti2e pri2ilege. H"*$: The o2ersight function of "ongress may be facilitated by compulsory process only to the e%tent that it is performed in pursuit of legislation. The communications elicited by the three 7,; #uestions are co2ered by the 1residentia communications 1ri#i e'e. 1st, the communications relate to a @ 2uintessentia and non3de e'a4 e 1o5er A of the 'resident, i.e. the po0er to enter into an e%ecuti2e agreement 0ith other countries. This authority of the 'resident to enter into executive agreements 0ithout the concurrence of the 1egislature has traditionally been recognized in 'hilippine 6urisprudence. 2nd, the communications are @recei2edA by a close ad2isor of the 'resident. Gnder the @ o1erationa 1ro6imit78 test. petitioner can be considered a close ad2isor, being a member of 'resident ArroyoCs cabinet. And 3rd, there is no ade#uate sho0ing of a compelling need that 0ould 6ustify the limitation of the pri2ilege and of the una#ai a4i it7 of the information else0here by an appropriate in2estigating authority. 7. "strada #s &rro7o G.R. No. 1)67!8 )A"TS$ 'etitioner sought to en6oin the respondent :mbudsman from conducting any further proceedings in any criminal complaint that may be filed in his office, until after the term of petitioner as 'resident is o2er and only if legally 0arranted. =rap also filed a Kuo 3arranto case, praying for 6udgment @confirming petitioner to be the la0ful and incumbent 'resident of the 9epublic of the 'hilippines temporarily unable to discharge the duties of his office, and declaring respondent to ha2e taken her oath as and to be holding the :ffice of the 'resident, only in an acting capacity pursuant to the pro2isions of the "onstitution.A

<=1D$ )59ST$ The cases at bar pose legal and not political #uestions. The principal issues for resolution re#uire the proper interpretation of certain pro2isions in the 1 8* "onstitution, notably section 1 of Article 55, and section 8 of Article (55, and the allocation of go2ernmental po0ers under section 55 of Article (55. The issues like0ise call for a ruling on the scope of presidential immunity from suit. They also in2ol2e the correct calibration of the right of petitioner against pre6udicial publicity. As early as the 18-, case of /arbury 2. /adison, the doctrine has been laid do0n that @it is emphatically the pro2ince and duty of the 6udicial department to say 0hat the la0 is . . .A The "ourt also distinguished bet0een =DSA 'eople 'o0er 5 and =DSA 'eople 'o0er 55. =DSA 5 in2ol2es the e%ercise of the people po0er of re2olution 0hich o2erthre0 the 0hole go2ernment. =DSA 55 is an e%ercise of people po0er of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the go2ernment for redress of grie2ances 0hich only affected the office of the 'resident. =DSA 5 is e%tra constitutional and the legitimacy of the ne0 go2ernment that resulted from it cannot be the sub6ect of 6udicial re2ie0, but =DSA 55 is intra constitutional and the resignation of the sitting 'resident that it caused and the succession of the (ice 'resident as 'resident are sub6ect to 6udicial re2ie0. =DSA 5 presented political #uestionL =DSA 55 in2ol2es legal #uestions. S=":8D$ Gsing the totality test, the S" held that petitioner resigned as 'resident. a. The proposal for a snap election for president in /ay 0here he 0ould not be a candidate is an indicium that petitioner had intended to gi2e up the presidency e2en at that time. b. The Angara diary sho0s that the 'resident 0anted only fi2e&day period promised by 9eyes, as 0ell as to open the second en2elop to clear his name. @5f the en2elope is opened, on /onday, he says, he 0ill lea2e by /onday. @The 'resident says. @'agod na pagod na ako. Ayoko na masyado nang masakit. 'agod na ako sa red tape, bureaucracy, intriga. 75 am 2ery tired. 5 donCt 0ant any more of this M itCs too painful. 5Cm tired of the red tape, the bureaucracy, the intrigue.; @5 6ust 0ant to clear my name, then 5 0ill go.A The S" held that this is high grade e2idence that the petitioner has resigned. The intent to resign is clear 0hen he said @% % % Ayoko na masyado nang masakit.A @ Ayoko naA are 0ords of resignation. c. During the negotiations, the resignation of the petitioner 0as treated as a gi2en fact. The only unsettled points at that time 0ere the measures to be undertaken by the parties during and after transition period. d. <is resignation 0as also confirmed by his lea2ing /alacaNang. 5n the press release containing his final statement, 71; he ackno0ledged the oath&taking of the respondent as 'resident of the 9epublic albeit 0ith the reser2ation about its legalityL 7.; he emphasized he 0as lea2ing the 'alace, the seat of the presidency, for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of our nation. <e did not say he 0as lea2ing the 'alace due to any kind of inability and he 0as going to re&assume the presidency as soon as the disability disappearsL 7,; he e%pressed his gratitude to the

people for the opportunity to ser2e them. 3ithout doubt, he 0as referring to the past opportunity gi2en him to ser2e the people as 'residentL 7F; he assured that he 0ill not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in the same ser2ice of our country. 'etitionerCs reference is to a future challenge after occupying the office ofC the president 0hich he has gi2en upL and 75; he called on his supporters to 6oin him in the promotion of a constructi2e national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. "ertainly, the national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity could not be attained if he did not gi2e up the presidency. The press release 0as petitionerCs 2aledictory, his final act of fare0ell. <is presidency is no0 in the past tense. T<59D$ The petitioner is permanently unable to act as 'resident. Section 11 of Article (55 pro2ides that @"ongress has the ultimate authority under the "onstitution to determine 0hether the 'resident is incapable of performing his functions.A Both houses of "ongress ha2e recognized respondent Arroyo as the 'resident. The <ouse of 9epresentati2e passed on +anuary .F, .--1 <ouse 9esolution 8o. l*5 0hich states$ @9=S:1GT5:8 =I'9=SS58> T<= SG'':9T :) T<= <:GS= :) 9='9=S=8TAT5(=S T: T<= ASSG/'T5:8 58T: :))5"= BE (5"= '9=S5D=8T >1:95A /A"A'A>A1&A99:E: AS '9=S5D=8T :)T<= 9='GB15" :) T<= '<515''58=S, =IT=8D58> 5TS ":8>9ATG1AT5:8S A8D =I'9=SS58> 5TS SG'':9T ):9 <=9 AD/585ST9AT5:8 AS A 'A9T8=9 58 T<= ATTA58/=8T :) T<= 8AT5:8CS >:A1S G8D=9 T<= ":8ST5TGT5:8.A The Senate also passed Senate 9esolution 8o. 8. 0hich states$ @9=S:1GT5:8 ":8)59/58> '9=S5D=8T >1:95A /A"A'A>A1&A99:E:CS 8:/58AT5:8 :) S=8. T=:)5ST: T. >G58>:8A, +9. AS (5"= '9=S5D=8T :) T<= 9='GB15" :) T<= '<515''58=SA 5mplicitly clear in that recognition is the premise that the inability of petitioner =strada is no longer temporary. "ongress has clearly re6ected petitionerCs claim of inability. =2en if petitioner can pro2e that he did not resign, still, he cannot successfully claim that he is a 'resident on lea2e on the ground that he is merely unable to go2ern temporarily. That claim has been laid to rest by "ongress and the decision that respondent Arroyo is the de 6ure 'resident made by a co&e#ual branch of go2ernment cannot be re2ie0ed by the Supreme "ourt. ):G9T<$ The petitioner does not en6oy immunity from suit. The Supreme "ourt re6ected petitionerCs argument that he cannot be prosecuted for the reason that he must first be con2icted in the impeachment proceedings. The impeachment trial of petitioner =strada 0as aborted by the 0alkout of the prosecutors and by the e2ents that led to his loss of the presidency. :n )ebruary *, .--1, the Senate passed Senate 9esolution 8o. 8, @9ecognizing that the 5mpeachment "ourt is )unctus :fficio.A Since the 5mpeachment "ourt is no0 functus officio, it is untenable for petitioner to demand that he should first be impeached and then con2icted before he can be prosecuted. The plea, if granted, 0ould put a perpetual bar against his prosecution. The debates in the "onstitutional "ommission make it clear that 0hen impeachment proceedings ha2e become moot due to the resignation of the 'resident, the proper criminal and ci2il cases may already be filed against him. The S" also ruled in 5n re$ Saturnino Bermudez that @incumbent 'residents are immune from suit or from being brought to court during the period of their incumbency and tenureA but not beyond. "onsidering the peculiar circumstance that the impeachment process against the petitioner has been aborted and thereafter he lost the presidency, petitioner cannot demand as a condition sine #ua non to

his criminal prosecution before the :mbudsman that he be con2icted in the impeachment proceedings. Also, petitioner cannot cite any decision of the S" licensing the 'resident to commit criminal acts and 0rapping him 0ith post&tenure immunity from liability. The rule is that unla0ful acts of public officials are not acts of the State and the officer 0ho acts illegally is not acting as such but stands in the same footing as any other trespasser. )5)T<$ 'etitioner 0as not denied the right to impartial trial. 'er2asi2e publicity is not per se pre6udicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. The mere fact that the trial of appellant 0as gi2en a day&to&day, ga2el&to&ga2el co2erage does not by itself pro2e that the publicity so permeated the mind of the trial 6udge and impaired his impartiality. 5n the case at bar, the records do not sho0 that the trial 6udge de2eloped actual bias against appellant as a conse#uence of the e%tensi2e media co2erage of the pre&trial and trial of his case. The totality of circumstances of the case does not pro2e that the trial 6udge ac#uired a fi%ed opinion as a result of pre6udicial publicity 0hich is incapable if change e2en by e2idence presented during the trial. Appellant has the burden to pro2e this actual bias and he has not discharged the burden.

=. Civil 4iberties 6nion vs E1ecutive -ecretary

:n .5 +uly 1 8*, "ory issued =: .8F 0hich allo0s members of the "abinet, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other go2ernment offices or positions in addition to their primary positions sub6ect to limitations set therein. The "1G e%cepted this =: a2erring that such la0 is unconstitutional. The constitutionality of =: .8F is being challenged by "1G on the principal submission that it adds e%ceptions to Sec 1,, Art * other than those pro2ided in the "onstitutionL "1G a2ers that by 2irtue of the phrase @unless other0ise pro2ided in this "onstitution,A the only e%ceptions against holding any other office or employment in >o2ernment are those pro2ided in the "onstitution, namely$ 7i; The (ice&'resident may be appointed as a /ember of the "abinet under Sec ,, par. 7.;, Article *L and 7ii; the Secretary of +ustice is an e%&officio member of the +udicial and Bar "ouncil by 2irtue of Sec 8 71;, Article 8. ISS0": 3hether or not =: .8F is constitutional. H"*$: Sec 1,, Art * pro2ides$ @Sec. 1,. The 'resident, (ice&'resident, the /embers of the "abinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless other0ise pro2ided in this "onstitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract 0ith, or in any franchise, or special pri2ilege granted by the >o2ernment or any subdi2ision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including go2ernment&o0ned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly a2oid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.A 5t is clear that the 1 8* "onstitution seeks to prohibit the 'resident, (ice&'resident, members of the "abinet, their deputies or assistants from holding during their tenure multiple offices or employment in the go2ernment, e%cept in those cases specified in the "onstitution itself and as abo2e clarified 0ith respect to posts held 0ithout additional compensation in an e%&officio capacity as pro2ided by la0 and as re#uired by the primary functions of their office, the citation of "abinet members 7then

called /inisters; as e%amples during the debate and deliberation on the general rule laid do0n for all appointi2e officials should be considered as mere personal opinions 0hich cannot o2erride the constitutionCs manifest intent and the peopleCs understanding thereof. 5n the light of the construction gi2en to Sec 1,, Art * in relation to Sec *, par. 7.;, Art 5I&B of the 1 8* "onstitution, =: .8F is unconstitutional. :stensibly restricting the number of positions that "abinet members, undersecretaries or assistant secretaries may hold in addition to their primary position to not more than . positions in the go2ernment and go2ernment corporations, =: .8F actually allo0s them to hold multiple offices or employment in direct contra2ention of the e%press mandate of Sec 1,, Art * of the 1 8* "onstitution prohibiting them from doing so, unless other0ise pro2ided in the 1 8* "onstitution itself.