7/27/2019 CLU vs. Exec. Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 (1991)

1/1

F: The petitioner challenged Ex. Order No. 284 which in effect allowed Cabinet members, their

undersecretaries and asst. secretaries and other appointive officials of the Executive Department to hold

other positions in the govt., albeit, subject of the limitations imposed therein. The respondents, in refuting

the petitioners' argument that the measure was violative of Art. VIII, Sec. 13, invoked Art. IX-B, Sec. 7,

allowing the holding of multiple positions by the appointive official if allowed by law or by the pressing

functions of his positions.

HELD: By ostensibly restricting the no. of positions that Cabinet members, undersecretaries or asst.

secretaries may hold in addition to their primary position to not more than 2 positions in the govt. and

GOCCs, EO 284 actually allows them to hold multiple offices or employment in direct contravention of the

express mandate of Art. VIII, Sec. 13 prohibiting them from doing so, unless otherwise provided in the

1987 Constitution itself. If maximum benefits are to be derived from a dept. head's ability and expertise,

he should be allowed to attend to his duties and responsibilities without the distraction of other govt.

offices or employment.

xxx

The stricter prohibition applied to the Pres. and his official family under Sec. 13, Art. VII as compared to

the prohibition applicable to appointive officials in general under Art. IX, B, Sec. 7, par. 2 are proof of the

intent of the 1987 Consti. to treat them as a class by itself and to impose upon said class stricterprohibitions.

Thus, while all other appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to hold other office or employment

in the govt 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

Consti. itself. xxx

However, the prohibition against holding dual or multiple offices or employment under Art. VII, Sec. 13

must not be construed as applying to posts occupied by the Executive officials specified therein w/o

addition compensation in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law and as required by the primary

functions of said official's office. The reason is that these posts do not comprise "any other office" w/in the

contemplation of the constitutional prohibition but are properly an imposition of additional duties and

function on said officials. For more case digests and law school notes visit lizajamarga.com.