AI-generated
Updated 22nd March 2025
Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary
The Supreme Court declared Executive Order No. 284 unconstitutional for allowing Cabinet members to hold multiple government positions, violating Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits high-ranking officials from holding other offices unless expressly permitted by the Constitution.

Primary Holding

Executive Order No. 284 is unconstitutional as it contravenes the absolute prohibition under Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, which restricts the President, Vice-President, Cabinet members, and their deputies from holding other offices or employment during their tenure, except as explicitly allowed by the Constitution.

Background

President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order No. 284 on July 25, 1987, permitting Cabinet members to hold up to two additional government positions. Petitioners challenged this, arguing it violated the constitutional prohibition against dual offices. The cases were consolidated and resolved jointly.

Facts

  • 1. Executive Order No. 284 allowed Cabinet members, undersecretaries, and assistant secretaries to hold up to two additional government positions.
  • 2. Petitioners argued this violated Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits high-ranking officials from holding other offices unless constitutionally authorized.
  • 3. The Solicitor General defended the EO, citing DOJ opinions that linked it to Section 7(2), Article IX-B, which allows exceptions for appointive officials.

Arguments of the Petitioners

  • 1. EO 284 added exceptions not found in the Constitution, violating the explicit prohibition in Section 13, Article VII.
  • 2. The phrase “unless otherwise provided in this Constitution” in Section 13 refers only to express constitutional exceptions (e.g., the Vice-President serving in the Cabinet).
  • 3. The Constitution imposes stricter prohibitions on the President and Cabinet to prevent abuse.

Arguments of the Respondents

  • 1. EO 284 is valid under Section 7(2), Article IX-B, which allows exceptions for appointive officials if “allowed by law or primary functions.”
  • 2. The DOJ opinions (Nos. 73, 129, and 155) justified the EO as a reasonable interpretation of constitutional provisions.
  • 3. Practical governance requires Cabinet members to hold multiple roles for efficiency.

Issues

  • 1. EO 284 is valid under Section 7(2), Article IX-B, which allows exceptions for appointive officials if “allowed by law or primary functions.”
  • 2. The DOJ opinions (Nos. 73, 129, and 155) justified the EO as a reasonable interpretation of constitutional provisions.
  • 3. Practical governance requires Cabinet members to hold multiple roles for efficiency.

Ruling

  • 1. Rationale: The Court emphasized that Section 13, Article VII imposes an absolute prohibition on the President, Vice-President, and Cabinet members from holding other offices, except those explicitly stated in the Constitution. The phrase “unless otherwise provided in this Constitution” refers only to constitutional exceptions (e.g., the Vice-President in the Cabinet).
  • 2. Ex-Officio Positions: The prohibition does not cover ex-officio positions held without additional compensation, as these are inherent to the primary office (e.g., the Secretary of Justice on the Judicial and Bar Council).
  • 3. Distinction from Article IX-B: Section 7(2), Article IX-B applies to general appointive officials, while Section 13, Article VII is a stricter rule for high-ranking officials. EO 284’s “two-position limit” unlawfully diluted this stricter prohibition.
  • 4. Framers’ Intent: The 1987 Constitution aimed to prevent the abuse of multiple offices, a prevalent issue under the Marcos regime.

Doctrines

  • 1. Constitutional Construction: The intent of the framers and the people’s understanding guide interpretation.
  • 2. Harmonization Principle: Constitutional provisions must be interpreted to give effect to all parts.
  • 3. De Facto Officer Doctrine: Officials acting under unconstitutional laws may retain emoluments for services rendered.

Key Excerpts

  • 1. “The prohibition under Section 13, Article VII is all-embracing and covers both public and private office or employment.”
  • 2. “The holding of multiple offices in government was strongly denounced...as scandalous and revolting to the people’s sense of propriety.”

Precedents Cited

  • 1. Rafael v. Embroidery and Apparel Control Board (21 SCRA 336): Defined ex-officio positions as those held by virtue of primary office without new appointments.
  • 2. Castillo v. Arrieta (61 SCRA 55): Recognized de facto officers’ entitlement to emoluments for services rendered.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

  • 1. 1987 Constitution, Section 13, Article VII: Prohibits dual offices for the President, Vice-President, and Cabinet members.
  • 2. 1987 Constitution, Section 7(2), Article IX-B: General rule allowing exceptions for appointive officials if “allowed by law or primary functions.”