CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY- EXECUTIVE ORDER NO.

284

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.

2. GONZALES VS. COMELEC [21 SCRA 774; G.R. NO. L-28196; 9 NOV 1967]

Facts: The case is an srcinal action for prohibition, with preliminary injunction. The main facts are not disputed. On March
16, 1967, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed the following resolutions: 1. R. B. H. (Resolution of Both
Houses) No. 1, proposing that Section 5, Article VI, of the Constitution of the Philippines, be amended so as to increase
the membership of the House of Representatives from a maximum of 120, as provided in the present Constitution, to a
maximum of 180, to be apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the number of their
respective inhabitants, although each province shall have, at least, one (1) member; 2. R. B. H. No. 2, calling a convention
to propose amendments to said Constitution, the convention to be composed of two (2) elective delegates from each
representative district, to be elected in the general elections to be held on the second Tuesday of November, 1971; and 3.
R. B. H. No. 3, proposing that Section 16, Article VI, of the same Constitution, be amended so as to authorize Senators
and members of the House of Representatives to become delegates to the aforementioned constitutional convention,
without forfeiting their respective seats in Congress. Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval by the
President, on June 17, 1967, became Republic Act No. 4913, providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed
in the aforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by the people, at the general elections which
shall be held on November 14, 1967.

Issue: Whether or Not a Resolution of Congress, acting as a constituent assembly, violates the Constitution. Held: In as
much as there are less than eight (8) votes in favor of declaring Republic Act 4913 and R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3
unconstitutional and invalid, the petitions in these two (2) cases mustbe, as they are hereby, dismiss and the writs therein
prayed for denied, without special pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered. As a consequence, the title of a de facto
officer cannot be assailed collaterally. It may not be contested except directly, by quo warranto proceedings. Neither may
the validity of his acts be questioned upon the ground that he is merely a de facto officer. And the reasons are obvious: (1)
it would be an indirect inquiry into the title to the office; and (2) the acts of a de facto officer, if within the competence of his
office, are valid, insofar as the public is concerned. The judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be
called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral or
constituent units thereof. Article XV of the Constitution provides: . . . The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote
of three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately, may propose
amendments to this Constitution or call a contention for that purpose. Such amendments shall be valid as part of this
Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the
people for their ratification. From our viewpoint, the provisions of Article XV of the Constitution are satisfied so long as the
electorate knows that R. B. H. No. 3 permits Congressmen to retain their seats as legislators, even if they should run for
and assume the functions of delegates to the Convention.

3. IMBONG V COMELEC September 11, 1970RA 6132: delegates in ConCon; Petitioner: Imbong VS Respondents:
Ferrer (Comelec Chair), Patajo, Miraflor (Comelec Members) Petitioner: Gonzales VS Respondent : Comelec Ponente:
Makasiar RELATED LAWS:Resolution No 2 (1967) 2delegates from each representative district who shall be elected in
November, 1970. RA 4919 Resolution 4 (1969) representative districts according to thepopulation. Provided that each
district shall be entitled to 2 deledates. RA 6132 officers/employees as resigned when they file theircandicacySec 2:
apportionment of delegatesSec 5: Disqualifies any elected delegate from running for any public office in theelection or
from assuming any appointive office/position until the final adournment of the ConCon.Par 1 Sec 8: ban against all
political parties/organized groups from givingsupport/representing a delegate to the convention.
FACTS: This is a petition for declaratory judgment. These are 2 separate but relatedpetitions of running candidates for
delegates to the Constitutional Conventionassailing the validity of RA 6132.Gonzales: Sec, 2, 4, 5 and Par 1 Sec 8, and
validity of entire lawImbong: Par 1 Sec 8

ISSUE: Whether the Congress has a right to call for Constitutional Convention (Validity of R.A. No. 6132) and whether
theparameters set by such a call is constitutional. HOLDING: The Congress has the authority to call for a Constitutional
Convention asa Constituent Assembly. Furthermore, specific provisions assailed by the petitionersare deemed as
constitutional.

RATIO Sec 4 RA 6132: it is simply an application of Sec 2 Art 12 of Constitution Constitutionality of enactment of RA 6132
Congress acting as Constituent Assembly, has full authority to proposeamendments, or call for convention for the purpose
by votes andthese votes were attained by Res 2 and 4 Sec 2 RA 6132: it is a mere implementation of Res 4 and is
enough that thebasis employed for such apportions is reasonable. Macias case relied byGonsales is not reasonable for
that case granted more representatives toprovinces with less population and vice versa. In this case, Batanes is equalto
the number of delegates I other provinces with more population. Sec 5: State has right to create office and parameters to
qualify/disqualifymembers thereof. Furthermore, this disqualification is only temporary. Thisis a safety mechanism to
prevent political figures from controlling electionsand to allow them to devote more time to the Concon. Par 1 Sec 8: this is
to avoid debasement of electoral process and also toassure candidates equal opportunity since candidates must now
depend ontheir individual merits, and not the support of political parties. Thisprovision does not create discrimination
towards any particularparty/group, it applies to all organizations

4. BAUTISTA V. SALONGA Facts: In the case of Sarmiento III vs. Mison, the Supreme Court held that only
thoseappointments expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII are to be reviewed bythe Commission on
Appointments, namely, the heads of the executive department,ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or
officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in
him in thisConstitution. All other appointments by the President are to be made without the participationof the Commission
on Appointment. Since the appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Commission on Human Rightsis not
specifically provided for in the Constitution itself, unlike the Chairmen and Members of theCivil Service Commission, the
Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit, whoseappointments are expressly vested by the Constitution in
the President with the consent of theCommission on Appointments. The President appoints the Chairman and Members
of theCommission on Human Rights pursuant to the second sentence in Section 16, Art. VII, that is,without the
confirmation of the Commission on Appointments because they are among theofficers of government whom he (the
President) may be authorized by law to appoint. AndSection 2(c), Executive Order No. 163, 5 May 1987, authorizes the
President to appoint theChairman and Members of the Commission on Human RightsOn 27 August 1987, the President
of the Philippines designated Mary Concepcion Bautistaas Acting Chairman, Commission on Human Rights. Realizing
perhaps the need for apermanent chairman and members of the Commission on Human Rights, befitting anindependent
office, as mandated by the Constitution, the President of the Philippines on 17December 1988 extended to Bautista a
permanent appointment as Chairman of the Commission. By virtue of such appointment, Bautista was advised by the
President that she couldqualify and enter upon the performance of the duties of the office of Chairman of theCommission
on Human Rights, requiring her to furnish the office of the President and the CivilService Commission with copies of her
oath of office.On 22 December 1988, before the Chief Justice Fernan, Bautista took her oath of office by virtueof her
appointment as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights.Immediately, after taking her oath of office as Chairman of
the Commission on HumanRights, Bautista discharged the functions and duties of the Office of Chairman of the
Commissionon Human Rights.On 9 January 1989, Bautista received a letter from the Secretary of the Commission on
Appointments requesting her to submit to the Commission certain information and documents asrequired by its rules in
connection with the confirmation of her appointment as Chairman of theCommission on Human Rights. On 10 January
1989, the Commission on Appointments' Secretaryagain wrote Bautista requesting her presence at a meeting of the
Commission on AppointmentsCommittee on Justice, Judicial and Bar Council and Human Rights set for 19 January 1989
at 9A.M. at the Conference Room, 8th Floor, Kanlaon Tower I, Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City that woulddeliberate on her
appointment as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights. On 13 January 1989, Bautista wrote to the Chairman of
the Commission on Appointments stating,for the reasons therein given, why she considered the Commission on
Appointments as havingno jurisdiction to review her appointment as Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights.In
Commission‟s comment (in this case), dated 3 February 1989, there i s attached asAnnex 1 a letter of the Commission on
Appointments' Secretary to the Executive Secretary, Hon.Catalino Macaraig, Jr. making reference to the ad interim
appointment which Her Excellencyextended to Atty. Mary