Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No.

83896)
Posted: August 10, 2011 in Case Digests, Political Law

FACTS:
The two petitions in this case sought to declare unconstitutional Executive Order No.
284 issued by President Corazon C. Aquino. The assailed law provides that:
Sec. 1. 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 and receive the
corresponding compensation therefor; Provided, that this limitation shall not apply to
ad hoc bodies or committees, or to boards, councils or bodies of which the President
is the Chairman.
The petitioners alleged that the cited provision of EO 284 contravenes the provision
of Sec. 13, Article VII which declares:
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 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.
Public respondents, on the other hand, maintain 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 provision relied upon by the respondents provides:
Sec. 7. . . . . .
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.
ISSUE No. 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 general under Section
7, par. (2), Article I-XB?
No.
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.
Although Section 7, Article I-XB already contains a blanket prohibition against the
holding of multiple offices or employment in the government subsuming both elective
and appointive public officials, the Constitutional Commission should see it fit to
formulate another provision, Sec. 13, Article VII, specifically prohibiting the
President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants from
holding any other office or employment during their tenure, unless otherwise provided
in the Constitution itself. While all other appointive officials in the civil service are
allowed to hold other office or employment in the government during their tenure
when such is allowed by law or by the primary functions of their positions, members
of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants may do so only when expressly authorized
by the Constitution itself. In other words, Section 7, Article I-XB is meant to lay
down the general rule applicable to all elective and appointive public officials and
employees, while Section 13, Article VII is meant to be the exception applicable only
to the President, the Vice- President, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and
assistants.
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,
to wit: the Vice-President being appointed as a member of the Cabinet under Section
3, par. (2), Article VII; or acting as President in those instances provided under
Section 7, pars. (2) and (3), Article VII; and, the Secretary of Justice being ex-officio
member of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Section 8 (1), Article VIII.

ISSUE No. 2: Does the prohibition apply to positions held in ex officio capacity?
The prohibition against holding dual or multiple offices or employment under Section
13, Article VII of the Constitution must not, however, be construed as applying to
posts occupied by the Executive officials specified therein without additional
compensation in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law and as required by the
primary functions of said officials’ office. The reason is that these posts do no
comprise “any other office” within the contemplation of the constitutional prohibition
but are properly an imposition of additional duties and functions on said officials. The
term ex-officio means “from office; by virtue of office.” Ex-officio likewise 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.” The additional
duties must not only be closely related to, but must be required by the official’s
primary functions. If the functions required to be performed are merely incidental,
remotely related, inconsistent, incompatible, or otherwise alien to the primary
function of a cabinet official, such additional functions would fall under the purview
of “any other office” prohibited by the Constitution.

ISSUE No. 3: Can the respondents be obliged to reimburse the perquisites they have
received from the offices they have held pursuant to EO 284?
During their tenure in the questioned positions, respondents may be considered de
facto officers and as such entitled to emoluments for actual services rendered. It has
been held that “in cases where there is no de jure officer, a de facto officer, who, in
good faith has had possession of the office and has discharged the duties pertaining
thereto, is legally entitled to the emoluments of the office, and may in an appropriate
action recover the salary, fees and other compensations attached to the office. Any per
diem, allowances or other emoluments received by the respondents by virtue of actual
services rendered in the questioned positions may therefore be retained by them.

Overall, Executive Order No. 284 is unconstitutional as it actually allows a member

of the cabinet, undersecretary or assistant secretary or other appointive officials of the
Executive Department to hold multiple offices or employment in direct contravention
of the express mandate of Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting
them from doing so, unless otherwise provided in the 1987 Constitution itself.
Krivenko vs Register of Deeds, GR No. L-630,November 15, 1947; 79 Phil 461
(Land Titles and Deeds Aliens disqualified from acquiring public and private lands)
Facts
An alien bought a residential lot and its registration was denied by the Register of
Deeds on the ground that being an alien, he cannot acquire land in this jurisdiction.
When the former brought the case to the CFI, the court rendered judgement sustaining
the refusal of the Register of Deeds.
Issue
WON an alien may own private lands in the Philippines.
Held
No. ―Public agricultural lands‖ mentioned in Sec. 1, Art. XIII of the 1935
Constitution, include residential, commercial and industrial lands, the Court stated:
Natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be
alienated, ‘and with respect to public agricultural lands, their alienation is limited to
Filipino citizens. But this constitutional purpose conserving agricultural resources in
the hands of Filipino citizens may easily be defeated by the Filipino citizens
themselves who may alienate their agricultural lands in favor of aliens. Thus Section
5, Article XIII provides: Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural
lands will be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations or
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines
Ordillo v. COMELEC

G.R. No. 93054, December 4, 1990

Gutierrez, J.

FACTS-

January 30, 1990, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6766 entitled “An Act Providing for anOrganic Act
for the Cordillera Autonomous Region”, the people of the provinces of Benguet ,Mountain Province,
Ifugao, Abra and Kalinga-Apayao and the city of Baguio cast their votesin a plebiscite.- Results of
plebiscite: approved by majority of 5,889 votes in Ifugao, rejected by 148,676 inthe rest provinces and
city. The province of Ifugao makes up only 11% of total population, and as such has the second
smallest number of inhabitants, of the abovementioned areas.- February 14, 1990, COMELEC issued
Resolution No. 2259 stating that the Organic Act for the Region has been approved and/or ratified by
majority of votes cast only in the province of Ifugao. Secretary of Justice also issued a memorandum
for the President reiterating COMELEC resolution, stating that “…Ifugao being the only province
which voted favorably –then. Alone, legally and validly constitutes CAR.”- March 8, 1990, Congress
ebacted Republic Act No. 6861 setting elections in CAR of Ifugaoon first Monday of March 1991.-
Even before COMELEC resolution, Executive Secretary issued February 5, 1990 amemorandum
granting authority to wind up the affairs of the Cordillera Executive Board andCordillera Regional
Assembly created under Executive Order No. 220.- March 30, 1990, President issued Administrative
Order No. 160 declaring among othersthat the Cordillera Executive Board and Cordillera Regional
Assembly and all offices underExecutive Order No. 220 were abolished in view of the ratification of
Organic Act.- Petitioners: there can be no valid Cordillera Autonomous Region in only one province as
theConstitution and Republic Act No. 6766 require that the said Region be composed of morethan one
constituent unit.- Petitioners therefore pray that the court:a.declare null and void COMELEC resolution
No. 2259, the memorandum of theSecretary of Justice, Administrative Order No. 160, and Republic
Act No. 6861 andprohibit and restrain the respondents from implementing the same and spending
publicfunds for the purposeb.declare Executive Order No. 220 constituting the Cordillera Executive
[Board and theCordillera Regional Assembly and other offices to be still in force and effect until
anotherorganic law for the Autonomous Region shall have been enacted by Congress and thesame is
duly ratified by the voters in the constituent units.

ISSUE

WON the province of Ifugao, being the only province which voted favorably for thecreation of the
Cordillera Autonomous Region can, alone, legally and validly constitute suchregion.

HELD

- The sole province of Ifugao cannot validly constitute the Cordillera Autonomous Region.a.The
keyword ins Article X, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution – provinces, cities,municipalities and
geographical areas connote that “region” is to be made up of morethan one constituent unit. The term
“region” used in its ordinary sense means two ormore provinces.- rule in statutory construction must be
applied here: the language of the Constitution,as much as possible should be understood in the sense it
has in common use and thatthe words used in constitutional provisions are to be given their ordinary
meaningexcept where technical terms are employed.
 Ordillo v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 93054, December 4, 1990

FACTS-

January 30, 1990, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6766 entitled “An Act Providing for an Organic Act
for the Cordillera Autonomous Region”, the people of the provinces of Benguet, Mountain Province,
Ifugao, Abra and Kalinga-Apayao and the city of Baguio cast their votes in a plebiscite.

- Results of plebiscite: approved by majority of 5,889 votes in Ifugao, rejected by 148,676 inthe rest
provinces and city. The province of Ifugao makes up only 11% of total population, and as such has the
second smallest number of inhabitants, of the abovementioned areas.

- February 14, 1990, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2259 stating that the Organic Act for the
Region has been approved and/or ratified by majority of votes cast only in the province
of Ifugao. Secretary of Justice also issued a memorandum for the President reiterating COMELEC
resolution, stating that “…Ifugao being the only province which voted favorably

–then. Alone, legally and validly constitutes CAR.”- March 8, 1990, Congress ebacted Republic Act
No. 6861 setting elections in CAR of Ifugao on first Monday of March 1991.

- Even before COMELEC resolution, Executive Secretary issued February 5, 1990 amemorandum
granting authority to wind up the affairs of the Cordillera Executive Board and Cordillera Regional
Assembly created under Executive Order No. 220.

- March 30, 1990, President issued Administrative Order No. 160 declaring among others that the
Cordillera Executive Board and Cordillera Regional Assembly and all offices under Executive Order
No. 220 were abolished in view of the ratification of Organic Act

.- Petitioners: there can be no valid Cordillera Autonomous Region in only one province as the
Constitution and Republic Act No. 6766 require that the said Region be composed of morethan one
constituent unit.- Petitioners therefore pray that the court:

a. declare null and void COMELEC resolution No. 2259, the

memorandum of theSecretary of Justice, Administrative Order No. 160, and Republic Act No. 6861 an
dprohibit and restrain the respondents from implementing the same and spending public funds for the
purpose

b. declare Executive Order No. 220 constituting the Cordillera Executive Board and the Cordillera
Regional Assembly and other offices to be still in force and effect until another organic law for the
Autonomous Region shall have been enacted by Congress and the same is duly ratified by the voters
in the constituent units.

ISSUE

WON the province of Ifugao, being the only province which voted favorably for thecreation of the
Cordillera Autonomous Region can, alone, legally and validly constitute suchregion.

HELD

- The sole province of Ifugao cannot validly constitute the Cordillera Autonomous
Region.a.The keyword ins Article X, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution – provinces,
cities,municipalities and geographical areas connote that “region” is to be made up of morethan one
constituent unit. The term “region” used in its ordinary sense means two ormore provinces.- rule in
statutory construction must be applied here: the language of the Constitution,as much as possible
should be understood in the sense it has in common use and thatthe words used
in constitutional provisions are to be given their ordinary meaningexcept where technical terms are
employed.