CLU vs EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

G.R. No. 83815 February 22, 1991

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/feb1991/gr_83896_1991.html

FACTS:

Petitioners seek to assail the constitutionality of EO No. 284 issued by Pres. Aquino.
They claim that Secs. 1, 2, 3 of the EO violates the Constitutional Provision of Sec. 13, Art. VIII
of the Constitution. The petitioners contend that the provisions add 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, the Vice President, and the Secretary of Justice.

The provisions of the EO in question provide:

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.

Meanwhile, Sec. 13, Art. VIII of the Constitution provides:

Section 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.

The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the
President shall not, during his tenure, be appointed as Members of the Constitutional
Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or
heads of bureaus or offices, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries.

The threshold question therefore is: 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 general under Section 7, par. (2), Article
I-XB which, for easy reference is quoted anew, thus: "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 corporation or their subsidiaries."

Public respondents, contend that the phrase “unless otherwise provided in the
Constitution” in Section 13, Article VII makes reference to Section 7, par. (2), Article I-XB
insofar as the appointive officials mentioned therein are concerned.

The petitioners maintained that the phrase “unless otherwise provided in this
Constitution” used in Section 13 of Article VII meant that the exception must be expressly
provided in the Constitution.

ISSUE:

Whether or not EO 284 is unconstitutional.

HELD:

Yes. The intent of the framers of the Constitution was to impose a stricter prohibition on
the President and his official family in so far as holding other offices or employment in the
government or elsewhere is concerned. 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.

Section 7, Article I-XB lays down the general rule applied to all elective and appointive
public officials and employees. Section 13, Article VII, on the other hand, is meant to create the
exception applicable only to the President, the Vice President, Members of the Cabinet, their
deputies and assistants.