Civil Liberties Union vs.

Executive Secretary
In July 1987, then President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order No. 284 which allowed
members of the Cabinet, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other government
offices or positions in addition to their primary positions subject to limitations set therein. The
Civil Liberties Union (CLU) assailed this EO averring that such law is unconstitutional. The EO
allows cabinet members, its deputies and other appointed officials to hold not more than two
offices. It provides:

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.

Sec. 2. If a member of the cabinet, undersecretary or assistant secretary or other appointive official of the
Executive Department holds more positions than what is allowed in Section 1 hereof, they (sic) must
relinquish the excess position in favor of the subordinate official who is next in rank, but in no case shall
any official hold more than two positions other than his primary position.

Sec. 3. In order to fully protect the interest of the government in government-owned or controlled
corporations, at least one-third (1/3) of the members of the boards of such corporation should either be a
secretary, or undersecretary, or assistant secretary.

The constitutionality of EO 284 is being challenged by CLU on the principal submission that it
adds exceptions to Sec 13, Article 7 of the Constitution which provides:

“Sec. 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 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 Sec. of Justice construed sec 12 Article 7 in relation to sec 7 par 2 Article 9 of the
Constitution. He said that Cabinet members, their deputy, and assistant secretaries may hold
other public office including in the boards of GOCC:
a. When directly provided for in the Constitution (Sec. of Jusice as ex-officio member of
JBC)
b. If allowed by law
c. If allowed by the primary functions of their respective positions
Section 7. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to
any public office or position during his tenure.

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.

CLU avers that by virtue of the phrase “unless otherwise provided in this Constitution“, the only
exceptions against holding any other office or employment in Government are those provided in
the Constitution, namely: (i) The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet
under Sec 3, par. (2), Article 7; and (ii) the Secretary of Justice is an ex-officio member of the
Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Sec 8 (1), Article 8
Petitioner argues that the exception to the prohibition in sec. 7 part 2 of article 9 under civil
service commission only applies to officers and employees of the Civil Service and do not apply
to Cabinet members and their deputies or assistant.
Respondents maintain that the phrase “unless otherwise provided in the Constitution” in Sec 13,
Art. 7, makes reference to Sec 7 par. 2, Article 9 in so far as appointive officials are concerned.

ISSUE: Whether or not EO 284 is constitutional.

HELD: No, it is unconstitutional.

STATUTORY PRINCIPLE

A foolproof yardstick in constitutional construction is the intention underlying the provision

under consideration. Thus, it has been held that the Court in construing a Constitution should
bear in mind the object sought to be accomplished by its adoption, and the evils, if any, sought to
be prevented or remedied. A doubtful provision will be examined in the light of the history of the
times, and the condition and circumstances under which the Constitution was framed. The object
is to ascertain the reason which induced the framers of the Constitution to enact the particular
provision and the purpose sought to be accomplished thereby, in order to construe the whole as
to make the words consonant to that reason and calculated to effect that purpose.

The SC took into consideration the intention of the framers underlying the provision. Thus the
Court reminded that in construing the Constitution, one should bear in mind the object sought to
be accomplished and the evils sough to be prevented. When provision is in doubt, the history of
the times, the condition, and circumstances under which the Constitution was framed should be
looked at. The objective is to ascertain the reason that induced the framers to enact that particular
provision in order to construe the whole as to make the words consonant to that reason and to
effect that purpose.
The practice of designating members of the Cabinet, their deputies, and assistant as members of
governing bodies of various government agencies and instrumentalities (GOOC), became
prevalent during the time of Marcos where he still held legislative powers. A lot of GOCCS were
created and Cabinet members and their assistants were designated to head or sit as members of
the Board. This practice of holding multiple offices or positions soon led to abuses by public
officials who took advantage for self-enrichment.

It was because of this reason why the 1986 Con-Com proposed this provision to prevent the evils
that come from holding of multiple offices.

The SC ruled that appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to hold other office or
employment in the government when such is allowed by law or by the primary functions of their
positions and that President, VP, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants may do so
only when expressly authorized by the Constitution. To follow the argument of the respondent or
to allow the Cabinet members to hold two offices would render the prohibition of Sec 13 of
Article 7 meaningless and go against the intent and purpose of the framers to impose stricter
prohibition on the President, VP, cabinet members and its deputies and assistant.

It is a well-established rule in Constitutional construction that no one provision of the

Constitution is to be separated from all the others, to be considered alone, and all the provisions
are to be interpreted as a whole to view the whole purpose of the Constitution. One section is not
to be allowed to defeat another, and the two can be made to stand together. In other words, the
court must harmonize them and must lean in favor of a construction which will render every
word operative rather than make the words meaningless.

Thus, since the purpose of the framers is to impose stricter prohibition on the President, VP,
members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants with respect to holding multiple offices or
employment in the government and that the only exception is when otherwise provided in the
Constitution itself. (e.g VP can be designated as a cabinet member, DOJ secretary can become
JBC member).

The prohibition must not however, be construed as applying to positions in ex officio (by virtue
of office) capacities occupied by the Executive officials without additional compensation as
provided by law and as required by the primary functions of their office. It’s an annex to official
position. The reason is that these posts do not comprise “any other office” within the
contemplation of the constitutional prohibition of sec 13 art. 7. If so, neither the President can
chair the National Security Council nor can the VP, Executive Secretary. DOF and DBM Sec
cannot sit in the Monetary Board.

The term “primary” used to describe “functions” must not be restricted to the singular but to the
plural. There are additional duties closely related to the official’s primary functions. If the
functions are incidental, remotely inconsistent, or alien to the primary function of a cabinet
official, such function falls under “any other office.