Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317

Where there is ambiguity, ratio legis est anima. The words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers.

Article IX (B), 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.

Article 7, Section 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.

 

Civil Liberties Union v Executive Secretary (194 SCRA 317)

http://talkaboutphilippinelaw.blogspot.com/2012/04/civil-liberties-union-v-executive.html

 

FACTS:

The petitioner are assailing the Executive Order No. 284 issued by the President allowing cabinet members, undersecretary or asst. secretaries and other appointive officials of the executive department to hold 2 positions in the government and government corporations and to receive additional compensation. They find it unconstitutional against the provision provided by Section 13, Article VII prohibiting the President, Cabinet members and their deputies to hold any other office or employment. Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B further states that “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 corporation or their subsidiaries." In the opinion of the DOJ as affirmed by the Solicitor General, the said Executive Order is valid and constitutional as Section 7 of Article IX-B stated “unless otherwise allowed by law” which is construed to be an exemption from that stipulated on Article VII, section 13, such as in the case of the Vice President who is constitutionally allowed to become a cabinet member and the Secretary of Justice as ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council.

 

ISSUE: Whether Section 7 of Article IX-B provides an exemption to Article VII, section 13 of the constitution.

 

RULING:

The court held it is not an exemption since the legislative intent of both Constitutional provisions is to prevent government officials from holding multiple positions in the government for self-enrichment which is a betrayal of public trust. 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. Thus the phrase “unless otherwise provided by the Constitution” in Section 13, Article VII cannot be construed as a broad exception from Section 7 of Article IX-B that is contrary to the legislative intent of both constitutional provisions. Such phrase is only limited to and strictly applies only to particular instances of allowing the VP to become a cabinet member and the Secretary of Justice as ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council. The court thereby declared E.O 284 as null and void.

 

https://lawiqlegal.wordpress.com/2020/11/23/civil-liberties-union-vs-executive-secretary/

 

* The pertinent provision of the assailed EO read: “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”

** [Civil Service Commission] Art IX-B, sec 7(2): 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

*** In the case at bar, there seemed to be a contradiction between Art IX-B, sec 7 and Art VII, sec 13 of the Constitution. One section is not to be allowed to defeat another if by any reasonable construction the two can be made to stand together. The intent of the framers of the Constitution was to impose a stricter prohibition on the President and his official family insofar as holding other offices or employment in the govt or elsewhere is concerned. If the contention of the respondents is adopted, the aforestated intent of the framers would be rendered nugatory. It must therefore be departed from (Civil Liberties Union v. Exec Sec, 194 SCRA 317)

**** “Ex-officio.” – means “from office; by virtue of office.” It refers to an “authority derived from official character merely, not expressly conferred upon the individual character, but rather annexed to the official position.” Also 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.” An ex-officio member of a board is one who is a member by virtue of his title to a certain office, and without further warrant or appointment. To illustrate, by express provision of law, the Secretary of Transportation and Communications is the exofficio Chairman of the Board of the Philippine Ports Authority, and the Light Rail Transit Authority. The ex-officio position being actually and in legal contemplation part of the principal office, it follows that the official concerned has no right to receive additional compensation for his services in the said position. The reason is that these services are already paid for and covered by the compensation attached to his principal office. For such attendance, therefore, he is not entitled to collect any extra compensation, whether it be in the form of a per diem or an honorarium or an allowance, or some other such euphemism. By whatever name it is designated, such additional compensation is prohibited by the Constitution. (Ibid.)