You are on page 1of 2

Civil Liberties Union vs.

Executive Secretary
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 subject to limitations set therein. The
Civil Liberties Union
(CLU) assailed this EO averring that such law is unconstitutional. The
constitutionality of EO 284 is being
challenged by CLU on the principal submission that it adds exceptions to Sec 13,
Article 7 of the
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 virtueof 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), Article 7; and (ii) the Secretary of Justice is an ex-officio member of the
Judicial and Bar Council
by virtue of Sec 8 (1), Article 8.
ISSUE: Whether or not EO 284 is constitutional.
HELD: No, it is unconstitutional. 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 constitutions manifest intent and the peoples understanding thereof.
In the light of the construction given to Sec 13, Art 7 in relation to Sec 7, par. (2), Art
IX-B of the 1987
Constitution, EO 284 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 2 positions in the government and government corporations, EO 284
actually allows them to
hold multiple offices or employment in direct contravention of the express mandate
of Sec 13, Art 7 of
the 1987 Constitution prohibiting them from doing so, unless otherwise provided in
the 1987
Constitution itself.

You might also like