Title
Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary
Case
G.R. No. 83896
Decision Date
Feb 22, 1991
Executive Order No. 284, allowing Cabinet members to hold multiple government positions, was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court for violating the 1987 Constitution's stricter prohibition on dual officeholding, except for expressly stated exceptions or ex-officio roles without additional compensation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 83896)

Petitioners and Respondents

Petitioners: Civil Liberties Union; Anti-Graft League of the Philippines, Inc.; Crispin T. Reyes.
Respondents: Executive Secretary; Secretaries of Agrarian Reform, Agriculture, Education, Environment and Natural Resources, Finance, Justice, Labor and Employment, Local Government, National Defense, Press, Public Works and Highways, Science and Technology, Trade and Industry, Tourism, Health, Transportation and Communication; Budget Commissioner; Head of the National Economic Development Authority.

Key Dates

DOJ Opinion No. 73, series of 1987 (July 23, 1987)
Executive Order No. 284 (July 25, 1987)
Congress convened (July 27, 1987)
Petitions consolidated (August 9, 1988)
Decision (February 22, 1991)

Applicable Constitutional Provisions

• Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution: “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…directly or indirectly practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested…”
• Section 7(2), Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution: “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…”

Factual and Legal Background

Executive Order No. 284 purported to limit Cabinet members and their deputies to not more than two additional positions beyond their primary office, mandated relinquishment of any excess, and required that at least one-third of government-owned or controlled corporation boards be composed of executive department officials.

Petitioners’ Contentions

EO 284 contravenes Section 13, Article VII’s absolute, self-executing prohibition against holding any other office or employment, permitting only those exceptions expressly enumerated in the Constitution (e.g., the Vice-President’s Cabinet membership, the Secretary of Justice’s ex-officio seat on the Judicial and Bar Council).

Respondents’ Arguments

Respondents invoked DOJ Opinions Nos. 73, 129, and 155, which interpreted Section 13, Article VII in conjunction with Section 7(2), Article IX-B to allow additional positions if authorized by the Constitution, by law, or by the primary functions of the office. They maintained EO 284 was a valid exercise of executive authority.

Constitutional Interpretation and Framers’ Intent

Applying a purposive approach, the Court noted the historical abuses during martial law when officials amassed multiple posts for enrichment. The 1987 framers intended a stricter prohibition on the President and his official family than that imposed on the general civil service.

Distinction between Principal and General Provisions

Section 7(2), Article IX-B sets a general rule for all appointive officials with broad exceptions. Section 13, Article VII, by contrast, imposes an absolute ban on the President, Vice-President, Cabinet members, and their deputies or assistants from holding any other office or employment

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.