Civil Liberties Union Vs. Executive Secretary 194 SCRA 317 (Constitutional n!

ibitions"

#AC$S% On 25 July 1987, Cory issued EO 284 which allows members of the Cabinet, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other o!ernment offices or "ositions in addition to their "rimary "ositions sub#ect to limitations set therein$ %he C&' e(ce"ted this EO a!errin constitutionality of EO 284 is bein that such law is unconstitutional$ %he challen ed by C&' on the "rinci"al

submission that it adds e(ce"tions to )ec 1*, +rt 7 other than those "ro!ided in the Constitution, C&' a!ers that by !irtue of the "hrase -unless otherwise "ro!ided in this Constitution,. the only e(ce"tions a ainst holdin any other office or em"loyment in /o!ernment are those "ro!ided in the Constitution, namely0 1i2 %he 3ice45resident may be a""ointed as a 6ember of the Cabinet under )ec *, "ar$ 122, +rticle 7, and 1ii2 the )ecretary of Justice is an e(4officio member of the Judicial and 7ar Council by !irtue of )ec 8 112, +rticle 8$ SSUE% 8hether or not EO 284 is constitutional$

&EL'% )ec 1*, +rt 7 "ro!ides0 -)ec$ 1*$ %he 5resident, 3ice45resident, the 6embers of the Cabinet, and their de"uties or assistants shall not, unless otherwise "ro!ided in this Constitution, hold any other office or em"loyment durin their tenure$ %hey shall not, durin said tenure, directly or indirectly "ractice any other "rofession,

"artici"ate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or s"ecial "ri!ile e ranted by the /o!ernment or any subdi!ision, a ency, or instrumentality thereof, includin o!ernment4owned or controlled

cor"orations or their subsidiaries$ %hey shall strictly a!oid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office$. 9t is clear that the 1987 Constitution see:s to "rohibit the 5resident, 3ice4 5resident, members of the Cabinet, their de"uties or assistants from holdin durin their tenure multi"le offices or em"loyment in the o!ernment, e(ce"t in those cases s"ecified in the Constitution itself and as abo!e clarified with res"ect to "osts held without additional com"ensation in an e(4officio ca"acity as "ro!ided by law and as re;uired by the "rimary functions of their office, the citation of Cabinet members 1then called 6inisters2 as e(am"les durin the debate and deliberation on the eneral rule laid down for all a""ointi!e officials should be considered as mere "ersonal o"inions which cannot o!erride the constitution<s

manifest intent and the "eo"le<s understandin

thereof$ 9n the li ht of the

construction i!en to )ec 1*, +rt 7 in relation to )ec 7, "ar$ 122, +rt 9=47 of the 1987 Constitution, EO 284 is unconstitutional$ Ostensibly restrictin the number of "ositions that Cabinet members, undersecretaries or assistant secretaries may hold in addition to their "rimary "osition to not more than 2 "ositions in the o!ernment and o!ernment cor"orations, EO 284 actually allows them to hold multi"le offices or em"loyment in direct contra!ention of the e("ress mandate of )ec 1*, +rt 7 of the 1987 Constitution "rohibitin them from doin so, unless otherwise "ro!ided in the 1987 Constitution itself$

(E)(LE Vs. RE*ES +47 SCRA 3+, (Electioneerin- an. /artisan /olitical acts"

#AC$S% >es"ondent 7uena!entura C$ 6anie o, Collector of Customs, Collection?istrict 99, 6anila 9nternational Container 5ort 169C52 Customs 5ersonnel Order assi ned Jo!encio ?$ Ebio, Customs O"eration Chief, 69C5 to the Office of the ?e"uty Collector of Customs for O"erations as )"ecial +ssistant$ Ebio filed with theComelec a letter @ com"laint "rotestin his transfer$ Ebio claimed that his new assi nment

!iolated Comelec >esolution Ao$ 2*** and )ection 2B1 1h2 of 7$5$ 7l $881, the Omnibus Election Code, which "rohibit the transfer of any em"loyee in theci!il ser!ice 12C days before the 6ay 11, 1992 synchroniDed national and locale l e c t i o n s $ 7 e f o r e t h e a r r a i n m e n t , r e s " o n d e n t 6 a n i e o m o ! e d t o ; u a s h t h e information on the round that the facts alle ed

do not constitute an offense$ Ee contended that the transfer of Ebio on January 14, 1992 did not !iolate 7$5$ 7l $ 881because on that date the act was not yet "unishable as an election offense$ 9t "ur"ortedly became "unishable only on January 15, 1992, the date of effecti!ity of Comelec >esolution Ao$ 2*** im"lementin )ection 2B1 1h2 of 7$5$ 7l $ 881$ %hetrial

court ranted "ri!ate res"ondent<s motion to ;uash and dismissed the criminalcase$

SSUE%

8hether or not transfer is !iolati!e of section 2B1 1h2 of 7$5$ 7l $ 881$

&EL'% ) e c t i o n 2 B 1 1 h 2 o f 7 $ 5$ 7 l $ 8 8 1 d o e s n o t " e r s e o u t l a w t h e t r a n s f e r o f a o!ernment officer or em"loyee durin the election

"eriod$ 9f done to "romoteefficiency in the o!ernment ser!ice$ Eence, )ection 2 of >esolution Ao$ 2***"ro!ides that the Comelec has to "ass u"on the reason for the "ro"osed transfer or detail$ 5rescindin from this "redicate, two elements must be established to "ro!e a!iolation of )ection 2B1 1h2 of 7$5$ 7l $ 881, !iD0 112 %he fact of transfer or detail of a "ublic officer or em"loyee withinthe election "eriod as fi(ed by the Comelec, and122 %he transfer or detail was effected without "rior a""ro!al of theComelec in accordance with its im"lementin rules and re ulations$+n officer cannot be held liable for !iolation of )ection 2B1 1h2 of 7$5$ 7l $ 881, a"enal "ro!ision, before the effecti!ity of Comelec >esolution Ao$ 2*** "romul atin the necessary im"lementin rules$

SA0$)S VS. *A$C) 112 (!ils. 743 (Cabinet 4e4bers5/artisan /olitical acts"

#AC$S% 5etitioner files for certiorari to re!o:e the order of res"ondent Jud e Fatco for cancellin his "re!ious order for e(ecution on the "arcel of land owned by the "etitioner$ %he said "arcel of land is bein occu"ied by Gernando 6endoHeD with an a reement to "ay in installment the said land to the "etitioners and that he shall !oluntarily !acate the land and the "ayments he "re!iously made shall be forfeited in fa!or of the "laintiff$ + ci!il case was filed by the "etitioner a ainst 6endoHeD for failure to "ay as "er a reement of both "arties$ 5etitioner later filed a motion for e(ecution to ta:e the land bac:$ ?efendant 6endoHeD mo!ed for "ost"onement to i!e both "arties sufficient time to come to an a reement which was allowed by the res"ondent #ud e$ 9t was settled by both "arties that 6endoHeD will secure a /)9) loan howe!er when he was ready to ma:e the "ayment the "etitioner refused to abide with their a reement and now as:in for a hi her amount of money for "ayment$ Gindin no #ustification on the issuance of the writ of e(ecution, Jud e Fatco ;uashed said order hence this "etition for certiorari based on lac: of #urisdiction or abuse of discretion$

SSUE%

8hether or not the res"ondent #ud e acted in lac: of #urisdiction or abuse of discretion

&EL'% %he court held that any #ud e has the #urisdiction to ;uash any writ of e(ecution issued by him es"ecially when it was im"ro!idently issued$ %here is no abuse of discretion by the #ud e since the defendant made an o""osition and "ro!ed that there is subse;uent !erbal a reement that amended the com"romise hence the e(ecution cannot be !alidly decreed without a hearin $ %he conse;uent ability of the defendant to meet his obli ations by securin a /)9) loan also #ustifies the court<s refusal to e#ect him from the "remises by an e(ecution$