(DIGEST NUMBER 1)

ARTICLE VII- EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
(194 SCRA 317)

FACTS:
President Aquino issued EO No. 284, which allows members
of the Cabinet, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold
other government offices or positions in addition to their primary positions.
It was assailed for it violates the Constitution.
Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of EO No. 284 on
the principal submission that it adds exceptions to Section 13, Article VII
other than those provided in the Constitution. According to petitioners, by
virtue of the phrase "unless otherwise provided in this Constitution," the
only exceptions against holding any other office or employment in
Government are those provided in the Constitution, namely: (1) The Vice-
President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet under Section 3,
par. (2), Article VII thereof; and (2) the Secretary of Justice is an ex-officio
member of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Section 8 (1), Article
VIII.

ISSUE: Whether or not an executive order allowing members of the

Cabinet, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other
government offices in addition to their primary positions is valid.

HELD:
Invalid. In the light of the construction given to Section 13,
Article VII in relation to Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B of the 1987
Constitution, Executive Order No. 284 dated July 23, 1987 is
unconstitutional. Ostensibly restricting the number of positions that
Cabinet members, undersecretaries or assistant secretaries may hold in
addition to their primary position to not more than two (2) positions in the
government and government corporations, Executive Order No. 284
actually allows them to hold multiple offices or employment in direct
contravention of the express mandate of Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution
prohibiting them from doing so, unless otherwise provided in the 1987 Constitution itself.
 (DIGEST NUMBER 2)

ARTICLE IX - CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

B. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
194 SCRA 317 [1991]

FACTS:
Petitioner contends that Section 13 run counter to See 13Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution -The
President, Vice-m President and the members of the Cabinet and their deputies or assistants shall
not, unless otherwise provided in this constitution, hold any office of employment during their
tenure.

By virtue of the opinion rendered by then Secretary of Justice Sedfrey Ordonez, construing
Section 13 Art. VII in relation to Section 7, par.2 Art.IX-B that cabinet members, their deputies
and assistants may hold other office including membership in the board of GOCC's when a)
directly provided by the constitution as in case of Sec of Justice which is made an ex-officio
member of the Judicial and Bar Council; b) if allowed by law; c) if allowed by the primary
functions of their respective positions, the President of the Philippines issued EO 284 two days
before Congress convened.

Petitioners argue that the exception to the prohibition in See 7 Par 2 Art IX applies to the officers
and employees of the Civil Service Commission in general and do not or cannot be extended to
Sec.13 Art.VII which applies specifically to President, Vice- Presiednt and members of the
Cabinet, their deputies and assistants. The difference in the contention of the parties therefore
lies in the interpretation of the phrase 'unless otherwise provided in the Constitution' used in
Sec.13 of Art.VII which has petitioner claims to refer only to those expressly provided by the
Constitution such as the Vice President being allowed to become member of the Cabinet or
Secretary of Justice to become an ex-officio member of the Judiciary and Bar Council, while
respondents insists it make reference to Sec 7 of Art IX-B in so far as the appointive official
mentioned therein is concerned.

ISSUE: Does the prohibition in Sec.13 Art.VII insofar as cabinet members, their deputies and
assistants are concerned admit of the broad exceptions made for appointive officials in general
under Sec 7 par 2 Art IXB unless otherwise allowed by law or the primary functions of his
position, no appointive officials shall hold any other office or employment in the government.

HELD:
We rule in the negative. In construing the Constitution, it should be borne in mind the objects it
sought to accomplish by its adoption, and the evils if any, it sought to prevent or remedy. The
practice of holding multiple offices or positions in the government led to abuses by unscrupulous
public officials who took advantage of this scheme for the purposes of self-enrichment. The
blatant betrayal of public trust evolved into one of the serious causes of discontent with the
Marcos regime.
A comparison of Sec 13 Art VII with other provisions of the Constitution on the disqualification
of the public official such as Sec. 13 Art VI on members of Congress, Sec 5 par 4 Art XVI on
members of the Armed Forces and even Sec '7 provisions on disqualification pertains to an office
or position in the government and GOCC's. Unlike Sec 13 Art. VI the prohibition is all-
embracing and covers both public and private office and position in the government. Thus, while
all the other appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to hold other office or
employment in the government during their tenure when such is allowed by law and the primary
function of their office, members of the cabinet, their deputies and assistants may do so only
when expressly authorized by the Constitution itself. In other words, Sec., Art IX- B is meant to
officials while sec 13 Art VII is meant to the exception applicable only to the President, Vice-
President, members of the cabinet and their deputies and assistants.

This being the case, the qualifying phrase 'unless otherwise provided in this Constitution' in see
13 Art VII cannot possibly refers to the broad exceptions provided under Sec.7 Art.IX-B of the
1987 Constitution. The position under See 13 Art VII is not to be interpreted as covering
positions held without compensation in ex-officio capacities as provided by law or as requires by
the primary functions of their office.

Mandating additional duties and functions of the President, Vice-President, Cabinet members
and their deputies and assistants which are not inconsistent with those already prescribed by their
offices or employment by virtue of their special knowledge, expertise and skill in their respective
offices is a practice long-recognized in many jurisdictions. It bears repeating through that such
additional duties or functions may not transgress the prohibition must be required by the primary
functions of the official covered, who is to perform the same in an ex officio capacity as
provided by law, without receiving any additional compensation therefore.
 (Digest Number 3)

Civil Liberties Union VS. Executive Secretary

FACTS:

Petitioners: Ignacio P. Lacsina, Luis R. Mauricio, Antonio R. Quintos and Juan T. David for
petitioners in 83896 and Juan T. David for petitioners in 83815. Both petitions were consolidated
and are being resolved jointly as both seek a declaration of the unconstitutionality of Executive
Order No. 284 issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on July 25, 1987.

Executive Order No. 284, according to the petitioners allows members of the Cabinet, their
undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other than government offices or positions in
addition to their primary positions. The pertinent provisions of EO 284 is as follows:

Section 1: A cabinet member, undersecretary or assistant secretary or other appointive officials

of the Executive Department may in addition to his primary position, hold not more than two
positions in the government and government corporations and receive the corresponding
compensation therefor.

Section 2: If they hold more positions more than what is required in section 1, they must
relinquish the excess position in favor of the subordinate official who is next in rank, but in no
case shall any official hold more than two positions other than his primary position.

Section 3: AT least 1/3 of the members of the boards of such corporation should either be a
secretary, or undersecretary, or assistant secretary.

The petitioners are challenging EO 284’s constitutionality because it adds exceptions to Section
13 of Article VII other than those provided in the constitution. According to the petitioners, the
only exceptions against holding any other office or employment in government are those
provided in the Constitution namely: 1. The Vice President may be appointed as a Member of
the Cabinet under Section 3 par.2 of Article VII. 2. The secretary of justice is an ex-officio
member of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Sec. 8 of article VIII.

Issue:

Whether or not Executive Order No. 284 is constitutional.

Decision:

No. It is unconstitutional. Petition granted. Executive Order No. 284 was declared null and void.

Ratio:

In the light of the construction given to Section 13 of Article VII, Executive Order No. 284 is
unconstitutional. By restricting the number of positions that Cabinet members, undersecretaries
or assistant secretaries may hold in addition their primary position to not more that two positions
in the government and government corporations, EO 284 actually allows them to hold multiple
offices or employment in direct contravention of the express mandate of Sec. 13 of Article VII of
the 1987 Constitution prohibiting them from doing so, unless otherwise provided in the 1987
Constitution itself.

The phrase “unless otherwise provided in this constitution” must be given a literal interpretation
to refer only to those particular instances cited in the constitution itself: Sec. 3 Art VII and Sec. 8
Art. VIII.