Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Case Title: Civil Liberties Union vs.

the Executive Secretary Date of Promulgation: February 22, 1991 Ponente: Justice Fernan Nature of the Case: petition for a declaration of the unconstitutionality of EO 284 issued by Pres. Aquino on July 25, 1987 and (for the Anti Graft League) the issuance of an extraordinary writ of prohibition and mandamus + TRO Facts of the Case: 1. EO 284 (1) allows ("limits") members of the Cabinet and other appointive officials in the Executive Department to hold not more than 2 positions, in addition to their primary position, in the government or GOCCs and receive compensation for it and (2) mandates that 1/3 of the board of GOCCs should be composed of secretaries/ Usecs/ or Asst Secs. 2. Petitioners contend that it's in violation of Section 13 Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution which states that the Pres., VP, Cabinet Members and their deputies, unless otherwise provided in the Constitution, hold any other office during their tenure. 3. Petitioners contend that in Opinion No. 73 (July 23, 1987), then Justice Secretary Sedfrey Ordoez construed Sec 13 Article 7 with Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B which states that: "unless otherwise allowed by law", no appointive official shall hold any other office during their tenure -The Opinion says that these appointive officials may hold other positions (a) when directly provided for in the Constitution (Justice Sec. is automatically made a member of the JBC under Sec 8, par 1, Article VIII) or (b) if allowed by law or (c) if allowed by the primary functions of their positions 4. For petitioners, only exceptions are: (1) The VP as Member of Cabinet and (2) the Sec of Justice. The exception in Section 7, par 2, Article IX-B applies to officers and employees of the Civil Service and do not apply to Pres., VP, Members of Cabinet and their deputies and assistants. Issues/Questions: 1. Does the prohibition in Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution insofar as Cabinet members, their deputies or assistants are concerned admit of the broad exceptions made for appointive officials in Section 7, par 2, Article IX-B? Ruling: EO 284 is unconstitutional and the petitions are granted.

Rationale: 1. Yardstick in unconstitutional construction: intention underlying the provision -> it has to be examined in the light of the history of the times, particularly in the context under which it was framed. The goal is to accomplish the purpose intended. 2. The Context: (a) When Marcos exercised legislative power, he created many new agencies and controlled many corporations through decrees and he installed people who already have positions to head them. Imelda Marcos headed 23 of these and Robert Ongpin had 29, for example (b) The 1986 Commission drafted the provision to correct that. In fact, according to Justice Isagani Cruz, that was one of the strongest points of the 1987 Constitution. 3. Sec 7, Article IX-B already has a blanket prohibition but the Commission formulated another provision, Sec 13 Article VII, specific to the Pres., VP, members of Cabinet and their deputies. WHY? 4. The framers intended to impose stricter prohibitions on the President and his family. This is similar to other provisions barring members of the armed forces to have other posts in government. Even Sec 7, Article IX-B gives emphasis to the barring of appointive officials. 5. Thus while all other appointive officials are allowed to hold other positions WHEN allowed by law or by the primary functions of their positions, Cabinet members and deputies have to be expressly allowed by Consti, 6. THUS Section 7 Article IX-B sets the general rule for all public officials while Sec 13, Article VII is specific to the President, VP, Cabinet and deputies. 7. Respondents' reading makes other provisions inoperative as in the case of VP 8. Rule in constitutional constructions: no one provision of the Consti is to be separated from others. The point is to harmonize all of them. 9. Ex-officio -> "from office, by virtue of office." -> primary functions allow it i.e. Pres in the National Security Council -> NO COMPENSATION ANYWAY -> justified by demands of efficiency and continuity