Civil Liberties Union (CLU) vs.

Executive Secretary
G.R. No. 83896, FERNAN, 1991-02-22

Legal Keywords/Doctrine:
De facto officers who have served in a position in good faith are entitled to retain
the emoluments (payments) and perquisites (privileges) of that position. The case
also emphasizes the stricter prohibition on the President and his official family
from holding any other office or employment during their tenure.

Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, subject to the qualification above-stated, the petitions are
GRANTED. Executive Order No. 284 is hereby declared null and void and is accordingly set aside.

Contention:
The petitioners argue that the exceptions to the prohibition on holding multiple
positions in the government, as stated in Section 13, Article VII of the
Constitution, must be expressly provided in the Constitution itself. The public
respondents, on the other hand, argue that the phrase "unless otherwise provided in
the Constitution" in Section 13, Article VII refers to Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-
B, which allows exceptions for appointive officials in general.

Section 13, Article VII

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.

Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B

No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public
office or position during his tenure.
 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.

Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B, rendered on July 23, 1987 Opinion No. 73, series of 1987, declaring 5

that Cabinet members, their deputies (undersecretaries) and assistant secretaries may hold other public
office, including membership in the boards of government corporations:
(a) when directly provided for in the Constitution as in the case of the Secretary of Justice who is made
an ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council under Section 8, paragraph 1, Article VIII; or
(b) if allowed by law; or
(c) if allowed by the primary functions of their respective positions; and that on the basis of this Opinion,
the President of the Philippines, on July 25, 1987, or two (2) days before Congress convened on July 27,
1987, promulgated Executive Order No. 284. 6

Facts:
The constitutionality of Executive Order No. 284, issued by President Corazon C.
Aquino on July 25, 1987. The petitioners argue that the executive order, which
allows members of the Cabinet, their undersecretaries, and assistant secretaries to
hold other government offices or positions in addition to their primary positions,
violates Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. The petitioners claim that
this section prohibits the President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, and
their deputies or assistants from holding any other office or employment during
their tenure, unless otherwise provided in the Constitution. The respondents in the
case are Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources Fulgencio Factoran, Jr.,
Secretary of Local Government Luis Santos, Secretary of National Defense Fidel
V. Ramos, Secretary of Health Alfredo R.A. Bengzon, and Secretary of the Budget
Guillermo Carague.

Issue:
Whether the exceptions provided in Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B of the
Constitution, which allows appointive officials to hold other offices or employment
in the government, apply to Cabinet members and their deputies or assistants. The
petitioners argue that the exceptions in Section 7, par. (2) do not apply to Section
13, Article VII, which specifically applies to the President, Vice-President,
members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and declared Executive
Order No. 284 unconstitutional. The Court held that the prohibition in Section
13, Article VII does not admit the broad exceptions made for appointive officials
in general under Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B. The Court emphasized that the
intent of the framers of the Constitution was to impose a stricter prohibition on the
President and his official family in holding other offices or employment. The Court
also noted that the practice of Cabinet members holding multiple positions in the
government had led to abuses and was strongly condemned by the people.

Ratio:
The Supreme Court based its ruling on the interpretation of the relevant provisions
of the Constitution. The Court noted that while there are several provisions in the
Constitution that disqualify government officials from holding other offices or
employment, the wording of these provisions varies. The Court specifically
focused on Section 13, Article VII, which imposes a strict prohibition on the
President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants
from holding any other office or employment during their tenure. The Court
emphasized that this prohibition is absolute and covers both public and
private office or employment.

The Court also highlighted the intent of the framers of the Constitution to impose
stricter prohibitions on the President and his official family due to the greater
powers they hold and the potential for abuse. The Court cited statements made by
members of the Constitutional Commission to support this interpretation.

The Court concluded that the qualifying phrase "unless otherwise provided in this
Constitution" in Section 13, Article VII cannot refer to the broad exceptions
provided under Section 7, Article IX-B. To interpret it as such would undermine
the intent of the framers to impose stricter prohibitions on the President and his
official family. The Court argued that the exceptions in Section 13, Article VII
must be read with equal severity and should only refer to specific instances cited in
the Constitution itself.

The Court also clarified that the prohibition against holding multiple offices or
employment does not apply to positions held without additional compensation in
an ex-officio capacity as provided by law and required by the primary functions of
the official's office. The Court explained that ex-officio positions are part of the
principal office and do not entitle the official to receive additional compensation.