Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary Case Digest

acts of the case:

On July 25, 1987, President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order No. 284 which
allows
members of the Cabinet, their undersecretaries, and assistant secretaries to hold other
government
offices or positions in addition to their primary positions. The petitioner maintain that this
is not
in accordance with Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which
provides that 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.
The E.O. No. 283 was issued based on the opinion of Secretary of Justice
Ordoñez
construing Section 13, Article VII in relation to Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B declaring
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
acts of the case:
allows
members of the Cabinet, their undersecretaries, and assistant secretaries to hold other
government
offices or positions in addition to their primary positions. The petitioner maintain that this
is not
in accordance with Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which
provides that 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.
The E.O. No. 283 was issued based on the opinion of Secretary of Justice
Ordoñez
construing Section 13, Article VII in relation to Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B declaring
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
an ex
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 (1991)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners: Ignacio P. Lacsina, Luis R. Mauricio, Antonio R. Quintos and Juan T. David for
petitioners in 83896 and Juan T. David for petitioners in 83815. Both petitions were consolidated
and are being resolved jointly as both seek a declaration of the unconstitutionality of Executive
Order No. 284 issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on July 25, 1987.

allows members of the Cabinet, their undersecretaries, and assistant secretaries to hold
other government offices or positions in addition to their primary positions. The
petitioner maintain that this is not in accordance with Section 13, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution which provides that 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. The E.O. No. 283
was issued based on the opinion of Secretary of Justice Ordoñez construing Section 13.
Article VII in relation to Section 7. par. (2), Article IX-B declaring 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
an ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council undet Sec 8, par. 1, Art. VIII; or (b)
if allowed by law; or (c) if allowed by the primary functions of their respective positions

Petitioners insist that because of the phrase "unless otherwise provided in this
Constitution" used in Section 13 of Article VII, 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 IX-B insofar as the appointive officials mentioned
therein are concerned
Issue of the case:

Whether 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 IX-B
Ruling of the Supreme Court:

No. The court ruled that in construing the Constitution, it should bear in mind the object
sought to be accomplished in its adoption, and the evil it sought to be prevented or
remedied. In this case, the evil sought to be prevented by Section 13. Article VII of the
1987 Constitution, is the blatant betrayal of public trust by the scandalous practice of
Cabinet members holding multiple positions in the government and collecting
unconscionably excessive compensation therefrom, just like what happened during the
Marcos regime. Thus, the phrase "unless otherwise provided in this Constitution" used
in Section 13 of Article VII 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. However, the prohibition under Section 13. Article VII
is not to be interpreted as covering positions held without additional compensation in ex-
officio capacities as provided by law and as required by the primary functions of the
concerned official's office. Hence, to reiterate, the Supreme Court ruled in this case that
the President. Vice-President. members of the Cabinet, their deputies or assistants are
prohibited from holding during their tenure multiple offices or employment in the
government. Except in those cases provided in the Constitution itself and with respect to
posts held without additional compensation in an ex officio capacity as provided by law
and as required by the primary functions of their office.

Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

acts of the case:

Issue of the case:

Ruling of the Supreme Court:

You might also like