Civil Liberties Union vs Executive Secretary

194 SCRA 317

DOCTRINE: Article vii, 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 professions, 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."

FACTS:

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of EO 284 which ostensibly restricted the number of
positions that Cabinet members, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries and other
appointive officials may hold in addition to their primary position but in effect allowed them
to hold multiple positions contrary to Art VII, Sec 13 of the Constitution.* In averring that EO
284 creates an exception to the rule in Art VII, Sec 13, respondents contend that the phrase
“unless otherwise provided in the Constitution” in said section makes reference to Art IX-B,
sec 7(2)** insofar as appointive officials mentioned therein are concerned.

ISSUE:

Does the prohibition in Art VII, Sec 13 of the Constitution insofar as Cabinet members, their
undersecretaries and assistant secretaries are concerned admit of the broad exceptions made for
appointive officials in general under Art IX-B, Sec 7(2) of the same?

RULING:

NO. Art IX-B, sec 7(2) is meant to lay down the general rule applicable to appointive public
officials, while Art VII, Sec 13 is meant to be the exception applicable particularly to the
President, Vice-President, Cabinet Members, their deputies and assistants.*** Thus, while all
other appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to hold other office or employment
during their tenure when such is allowed by law or by the primary functions of their positions,
Cabinet members, their deputies and assistants may do so only when expressly authorized by
the Constitution. EO 284 is thus null and void as it is repugnant to Art VII, sec 13. It was noted,
however, that the prohibition against the holding of any other office or employment by the
Pres., VP, Cabinet members, and their deputies or assistants during their tenure (provided in
Sec 13, Art VII) does not comprehend additional duties and functions required by the primary
functions of the officials concerned who are to perform them in an ex officio capacity**** as
provided by law.

* The pertinent provision of the assailed EO read: “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”

** [Civil Service Commission] Art IX-B, sec 7(2): 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

*** In the case at bar, there seemed to be a contradiction between Art IX-B, sec 7 and Art VII,
sec 13 of the Constitution. One section is not to be allowed to defeat another if by any
reasonable construction the two can be made to stand together. The intent of the framers of the
Constitution was to impose a stricter prohibition on the President and his official family insofar
as holding other offices or employment in the govt or elsewhere is concerned. If the contention
of the respondents is adopted, the aforestated intent of the framers would be rendered nugatory.
It must therefore be departed from (Civil Liberties Union v. Exec Sec, 194 SCRA 317)

**** “Ex-officio.” – means “from office; by virtue of office.” It refers to an “authority derived
from official character merely, not expressly conferred upon the individual character, but rather
annexed to the official position.” Also denotes an “act done in an official character, or as a
consequence of office, and without any other appointment or authority than that conferred by
the office.” An ex-officio member of a board is one who is a member by virtue of his title to a
certain office, and without further warrant or appointment. To illustrate, by express provision
of law, the Secretary of Transportation and Communications is the exofficio Chairman of the
Board of the Philippine Ports Authority, and the Light Rail Transit Authority. The ex-officio
position being actually and in legal contemplation part of the principal office, it follows that
the official concerned has no right to receive additional compensation for his services in the
said position. The reason is that these services are already paid for and covered by the
compensation attached to his principal office. For such attendance, therefore, he is not entitled
to collect any extra compensation, whether it be in the form of a per diem or an honorarium or
an allowance, or some other such euphemism. By whatever name it is designated, such
additional compensation is prohibited by the Constitution.