CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION vs EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Anti-Graft League of the Phils., Crispin Reyes- petitioner

Several Aquino Cabinet Members (Dept. Sec.: Juico, et al.)- respondents

July 25, 1987- Frmr. Pres. Corazon Aquino issued E.O. 284 which contained the following provisions:

Sec. 1. Even if allowed by law or by the ordinary functions of his position, a member of the Cabinet,
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 therefore; Provided, that this limitation shall not apply to ad hoc
bodies or committees, or to boards, councils or bodies of which the President is the Chairman.

Sec. 2. If a member of the cabinet, undersecretary or assistant secretary or other appointive Official of the
Executive Department holds more positions than what is allowed in Section 1 hereof, they(sic) 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.

Sec. 3. In order to fully protect the interest of the government in government-owned or controlled corporations,
at least one-third (1/3) of the members of the boards of such Corporation should either be a secretary, or
undersecretary, or assistant secretary.

Petitioner maintain that this Executive Order which, in effect, allows members of the Cabinet, their
undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other government offices or positions in addition to their
primary positions, albeit subject to the limitation therein imposed, runs counter to Section 13, Article VII of
the 1987 Constitution, which provides as follows:

"Sec. 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not,
unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, 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 with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the
Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office."

It is alleged that the above-quoted Section 13, Article VII prohibits public respondents, as members of the
Cabinet, along with the other public officials from holding any other office or employment during their
tenure.

Petitioners insist that because of the phrase "unless otherwise provided in this Constitution" used in Section
13 of Article VII, the exception must be expressly provided in the Constitution, as in the case of the Vice-
President being allowed to become a Member of the Cabinet under the second paragraph of Section 3, Article
VII or the Secretary of Justice being designated an ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council under
Article VIII, Sec. 8 (1).

Public respondents, on the other hand, maintain that the phrase "unless otherwise provided in the
Constitution" in Section 13, Article VII makes reference to Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B insofar as the
appointive officials mentioned therein are concerned.

As stated in Sec. 7…

“Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold
any other office or employment in the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.”

ISSUES:
Whether the prohibitions stated in Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution insofar, Cabinet members
their deputies or assistant are concerned admit the broad exceptions made for appointive officials in general
under the prohibitions found in Article IX-B, Section 7 paragraph 2.

Whether Executive Order No. 284 is unconstitutional or not.

RULING OR DECISION:

 Whether the prohibitions stated in Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution insofar, Cabinet
members their deputies or assistant are concerned admit the broad exceptions made for appointive
officials in general under the prohibitions found in Article IX-B, Section 7 paragraph 2

Used the 1st principle of Constitutional Construction, First, verba legis, that is, wherever possible, the words
used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed .

“Since the evident purpose of the framers of the 1987 Constitution is to impose a stricter prohibition on the
President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants with respect to holding
multiple offices or employment in the government during their tenure, the exception to this prohibition must
be read with equal severity. On its face, the language of Section 13, Article VII is prohibitory so that it must
be understood as intended to be a positive and unequivocal negation of the privilege of holding multiple
government offices or employment.”

“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, to wit: The Vice-President being appointed
as a member of the Cabinet under Section 3, par. (2), Article VII; or acting as President in those instances
provided under Section 7, pars. (2) and (3), Article VII; and, the Secretary of Justice being ex-officio member of
the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Section 8 (1), Article VIII .”

Article 13, Section VII, paragraph 2 of the 1987 Constitution contains the prohibitions that should be applicable
only to the the President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants. Using
the first principle of Constitutional Construction, we should interpret the law “upon its face”. Since the
aforestated article talks about the prohibitions imposed on the President and his official family, we must not
admit the prohibitions of Article IX-B, Section 7 paragraph 2 that lays down the broad exceptions made for
appointive officials in general.

Used the 3rd principle of Constitutional Construction, ut magis valeat quam pereat, the Constitution is to be
interpreted as a whole.

“It is a well-established rule in Constitutional construction that no one provision of the Constitution is
to be separated from all the others, to be considered alone, but that all the provisions bearing upon a
particular subject are to be brought in to view and to be so interpreted as to effectuate the great purposes of
the instrument. Sections bearing on a particular subject should be considered and interpreted together as to
effectuate the whole purpose of the Constitution and one section is not to be allowed to defeat another, if by
any reasonable construction, the two can be made to stand together. In other words, the court must
harmonize them, if practicable, and must lean in favor of a construction which will render every word
operative, rather than one which may make the words idle and nugatory.”

“The qualifying phrase "unless otherwise provided in this Constitution" in Section 13, Article VII cannot
possibly refer to the broad exceptions provided under Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution.”

The SC ruled that the prohibitions qualified by the terms “unless provided by this Constitution” found in
Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution are only applicable to the President, Vice-President, Cabinets
Members, their deputies and assistants and on the other hand, the prohibitions found in Article IX-B, Section 7
paragraph 2 lays down the general rule applicable to all elective and appointive public officials, employees. The
SC added that if we were to adopt the reasoning of the respondents of the certain provisions, certain parts of
the would be rendered inoperative.
  Whether Executive Order No. 284 is unconstitutional or not

Referring the 2nd tool for Constitutional Construction, Ratio Legis est anima which states that the words of the
Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framer.

“A foolproof yardstick in Constitutional construction is the intention underlying the provision under
consideration. Court in construing a consti should bear in mind the object sought to be accomplished by its
adoption, and the evils, if any, sought to be prevented or remedied. A doubtful provision will be examined in
the light of the history the times, and the condition and circumstances under which the consti was framed. The
object is to ascertain the reason which induced the framers of the consti to enact the particular provision and
the purpose sought to be accomplished, thereby, in order to construe the whole as to make the words
consonant to that reason and calculated to effect that purpose.”

It is to be highlighted that one of the selling points of the 1987 Constitution was to abolish the practice of
Executive officials from holding multiple offices in the Government which was prevalent during the Marcos
regime. Article 13, Section VII, par. 2 prohibits the practice Executive officials particularly the President and his
official family from holding multiple positions in the government that are not ex-officio post that are necessary
for the fulfillment of the primary duties. In contrast to this, Executive Order No. 284 allows Executive officials
to hold not more than two positions in the government, but not referring ex-officio positions pursuant to their
primary duties, which in fact, goes against the constitution. It is hereby declared by the SC that Executive Order
No. 284 is unconstitutional.