Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary

Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary

G.R. No. 83896 February 22, 1991

Fernan, C.J.

Facts:

                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 unconstitutionality of Executive Order No. 284 issued by President Corazon C. Aquino.

                Executive Order No. 284, according to the petitioners allows members of the cabinet, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other than government offices or positions in addition to their primary positions. The pertinent provisions of EO 284 are as follows:

Section 1: A cabinet member, 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 corresponding compensation thereof.

Section 2: If they hold more than what is required in section 1, they must relinquish the excess position in favor of the subordinate official who is next in rank, but in no case shall any officer hold not more than two positions other than his primary position.

Section 3: At least 1/3 of the members of the boards of such corporation should either be a secretary, undersecretary or assistant secretary.

                The petitioners are challenging EO 284’s constitutionality because it adds exceptions to Section 13 of Article VII of the constitution. According to the petitioners, the only exceptions against holding any other office or employment in government are those provided in the constitution namely: 1. The Vice President may be appointed as the Cabinet Member under Sec. 3 (2) of Article VII. 2. The secretary of justice is an ex-officio of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Sec. 8 of Article VIII.

Issue:

                whether Executive Order No. 284 is unconstitutional

Held:

                Sec 13, Art 7 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 1987 Constitution seeks to prohibit the President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, their deputies or assistants from holding during their tenure multiple offices or employment in the government, except in those cases specified in the Constitution itself and as above clarified 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, the citation of Cabinet members (then called Ministers) as examples during the debate and deliberation on the general rule laid down for all appointive officials should be considered as mere personal opinions which cannot override the constitution’s manifest intent and the people’s understanding thereof. In the light of the construction given to Sec 13, Art 7 in relation to Sec 7, par. (2), Art IX-B of the 1987 Constitution, EO 284 is unconstitutional. Ostensibly restricting the number of positions that Cabinet members, undersecretaries or assistant secretaries may hold in addition to their primary position to not more than 2 positions in the government and government corporations, EO 284 actually allows them to hold multiple offices or employment in direct contravention of the express mandate of Sec 13, Art 7 of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting them from doing so, unless otherwise provided in the 1987 Constitution itself.

Issue:

                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?

Held:

                No. 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:

                Does the prohibition apply to positions held in ex officio capacity?

Held:

                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:

                Can the respondents be obliged to reimburse the perquisites they have received from the offices they have held pursuant to EO 284?

Held:

                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.