CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION VS. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, PETITIONER, VS.

THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, RESPONDENT. 

G.R. No. 83896, February 22, 1991

ANTI-GRAFT LEAGUE OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. AND CRISPIN T. REYES, VS.

PHILIP ELLA C. JUICO, AS SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM; CARLOS DOMINGUEZ, AS SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE; LOURDES QUISUMBING, AS SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS; FULGENCIO FACTORAN, JR., AS SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES; VICENTE V. JAYME, AS SECRETARY OF FINANCE; SEDFREY ORDONEZ, AS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE; FRANKLIN N. DRILON, AS SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT; LUIS SANTOS, AS SECRETARY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT; FIDEL V. RAMOS, AS SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; TEODORO F. BENIGNO, AS PRESS SECRETARY; JUANITO FERRER, AS SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS; ANTONIO ARRIZABAL, AS SECRETARY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; JOSE CONCEPCION, AS SECRETARY OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY; JOSE ANTONIO GONZALEZ, AS SECRETARY OF TOURISM; ALFREDO R. A. BENGZON, AS SECRETARY OF HEALTH; REINERIO D. REYES, AS SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION; GUILLERMO CARAGUE, AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUDGET; AND SOLITA MONSOD, AS HEAD OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

G.R. NO. 83815 FEBRUARY 22, 1991

FACTS:

The constitutionality of Executive Order No. 284 is being challenged by petitioners on the principal submission that it adds exceptions to Section 13, Article VII other than those provided in the Constitution.  According to petitioners, 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:  (1) The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet under Section 3, par. (2), Article VII thereof; and (2) the Secretary of Justice is an ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Section 8 (1), Article VIII. Petitioners further argue that the exception to the prohibi¬tion in Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B on the Civil Service Commission applies to officers and employees of the Civil Service in general and that said exceptions do not apply and cannot be extended to Section 13, Article VII which applies specifically to the President, Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet and their deputies or assistants.

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 IX-B.

RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. 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 IX-B 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 ap¬plicable only to the President, the Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants.

This being the case, the qualifying phrase "unless otherwise provided in this Constitution" in Section 13, Article VII cannot possibly refer to the broad exceptions provided under Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution.  To construe said qualify¬ing phrase as respondents would have us do, would render nugatory and meaningless the manifest intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to impose a stricter prohibition on the President, Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants with respect to holding other offices or employment in the government during their tenure.

Section 7, par. (2) of Article IX-B be construed vis-a-vis Section 13, Article VII. 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, 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.

In the light of the construction given to Section 13, Article VII in relation to Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution, Executive Order No. 284 dated July 23, 1987 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 two (2) positions in the government and government corporations, Executive Order No. 284 actually allows them 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.