G.R. No. 83896; G.R. No. 83815 – 272 Phil. 147 – 194 SCRA 317 – Political Law – The Executive Department – Ex Officio Officials – Members of the Cabinet – Singularity of Office – EO 284
Constitutional Law – General Principles – Interpretation / Construction of the Constitution – Intent of the Framers vs How the People Understand the Constitution
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. The Civil Liberties Union (CLU) questioned this EO averring that such law is unconstitutional as it violates Sec. 13, Art. VII of the 1987 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.”
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), Art. VII; and (ii) the Secretary of Justice is an ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Sec 8 (1), Art. VIII.
The Executive Secretary through the OSG argued that EO 284 is permitted by par. 2, Sec. 7, Art. IX-B of the 1987 Constitution which provides: 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not EO 284 is constitutional.
HELD: No, it is unconstitutional. The argument of the OSG is incorrect. Par. 2, Sec. 7, Art. IX-B is a general rule which creates a blanket prohibition against appointive officials from holding multiple government positions. On the other hand, Sec. 13, Art. VII is a specific rule proscribing the President and his or her official family from holding any other government positions unless allowed by the Constitution. In fact, the prohibition extends even to private offices.
The SC also noted that in order to avoid faulty interpretations such as what the OSG argued in this case, the 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, but that all the provisions bearing upon a particular subject are to be brought into view and to be so interpreted as to effectuate the great purposes of the instrument” must be observed. Sections bearing on a particular subject should be considered and interpreted together as to effectuate the whole purpose of the Constitution and one section is not to be allowed to defeat another, if by any reasonable construction, the two can be made to stand together. In other words, the court must harmonize them, if practicable, and must lean in favor of a construction which will render every word operative, rather than one which may make the words idle and nugatory.
Further, it must be noted that when the draft of the 1987 Constitution was presented to the people for their ratification, one of the selling points for its approval by the people was the explanation that the 1987 Constitution sought to avoid the abuses of the Martial Law Regime where high ranking officials held multiple government positions which resulted in rampant incompetence and corruption; that the scandalous practice of cabinet members holding multiple positions in the government and collecting unconscionably excessive compensation would be discontinued. It was by this promise, among others, that the people ratified the 1987 Constitution.
It is clear that 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.
NOTE: The SC likewise noted that there were deliberations by the Constitutional Commission wherein one of the commissioners seem to argue that cabinet officials may be allowed to hold other offices (non ex-officio) in order to protect government interest. The SC noted that the deliberations at that point were only preliminary and the ultimate consensus of the Commissioners was to prohibit the President and his or her official family from holding other offices. Nevertheless, the SC noted that the proper interpretation of the Constitution depends more on how it was understood by the people adopting it than in the framers’ understanding thereof.
