Flores vs. Drilon

ROBERTO A. FLORES, DANIEL Y. FIGUEROA, ROGELIO T. PALO, DOMINGO A. JADLOC, CARLITO T. CRUZ AND MANUEL P. REYES  VS.

HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND RICHARD J. GORDON

G.R. No. 104732, June 22, 1993

The constitutionality of Sec. 13, par. (d), of R.A. 7227 otherwise known as the "Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992," under which respondent Mayor Richard J. Gordon of Olongapo City was appointed Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), is challenged in this petition with prayer for prohibition, preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.

Petitioners, who claim to be taxpayers, employees of the U.S. Facility at Subic, Zambales, and officers and members of the Filipino Civilian Employees Association in U. S. Facilities in the Philippines, maintain that the proviso of the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992 infringes on the following constitutional and statutory provisions: (a) Sec. 7, first par., Art. IX-B, of the Constitution, which states that “no elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure,” because the City Mayor of Olongapo City is an elective official and the subject posts are public offices; (b) Sec. 16, Art. VII, of the Constitution, which provides that "the President shall xxx x appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint", since it was Congress through the questioned proviso and not the President who appointed the Mayor to the subject posts.

ISSUE:

Whether the proviso in Sec. 13, par. (d), of R.A. 7227 which states, "Provided, however, that for the first year of its operations from the effectivity of this Act, the mayor of the City of Olongapo shall be appointed as the chairman and chief executive officer of the Subic Authority," violates the constitutional proscription against appointment or designation of elective officials to other government posts.

RULING:

Sec. 7 of Art. IX-B of the Constitution provides: "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.”

The section expresses the policy against the concentration of several public positions in one person, so that a public officer or employee may serve full-time with dedication and thus be efficient in the delivery of public services. It is an affirmation that a public office is a full-time job. Hence, a public officer or employee, like the head of an executive department should be allowed to attend to his duties and responsibilities without the distraction of other governmental duties or employment. He should be precluded from dissipating his efforts, attention and energy among too many positions of responsibility, which may result in haphazardness and inefficiency.

Particularly as regards the first paragraph of Sec. 7, the basic idea really is to prevent a situation where a local elective official will work for his appointment in an executive position in government, and thus neglect his constituents.

In the case before us, the subject proviso directs the President to appoint an elective official, i.e., the Mayor of Olongapo City, to other government posts (as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of SBMA). Since this is precisely what the constitutional proscription seeks to prevent, it needs no stretching of the imagination to conclude that the proviso contravenes Sec. 7, first par., Art. IX-B, of the Constitution. Here, the fact that the expertise of an elective official may be most beneficial to the higher interest of the body politic is of no moment.

In any case, the view that an elective official may be appointed to another post if allowed by law or by the primary functions of his office ignores the clear-cut difference in the wording of the two (2) paragraphs of Sec. 7, Art. IX-B, of the Constitution. While the second paragraph authorizes holding of multiple offices by an appointive official when allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, the first paragraph appears to be more stringent by not providing any exception to the rule against appointment or designation of an elective official to other government posts, except as are particularly recognized in the Constitution itself, e.g., the President as head of the economic and planning agency;[ the Vice President, who may be appointed Member of the Cabinet; and, a member of Congress who may be designated ex officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council. The distinction being clear, the exemption allowed to appointive officials in the second paragraph cannot be extended to elective officials who are governed by the first paragraph