1.) Yes, AB’s contention is correct. The constitution provides that no decision shall be rendered by the court without distinctly stating the facts and the law on which it is base.

In this case at bar, the RTC only mentioned the facts of the case before it reached to the said court. It does not provide a legal justification on upholding the judgment of the lower court.

Therefore, the RTC did not comply the said constitutional requirement.

2.) A. Yes, the prohibition is Sec. 13 Art VII of the 1987 consittution.

The constitution provides that the president, vice-president, the members of the cabinet, and their deputies and assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this constitution. Hold any other office or employment during their nature.

In the case at bar, ME belongs specifically to the class of cabinet members by his appointment as a PCGG chairman. His subsequent appointment then is unconstitutional because it does not fall on the exception-unless otherwise provided in this constitution; there being an incompatibility of the two positions.

Comment: PIA vs Elma

B. Yes, the concurrent holding of the positions of PCGG chairman and CPLC is covered by the prohibition is Section 1 if Art XI.

The constitution provides that unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary function of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the government or any subdivision or agency or instrumentality thereof, including GOCC’s or their subsidiaries.

Though the said law mentioned an appointive official in general or broad manner, the position of a PCGG chairman belongs to the category since a cabinet is appointed by the president. Thus, such position occupied by him may be declared unconstitutional by reason of incompatibility of the two offices which is not allowed by law or there is incompatibility of the function as cabinet member and a chief presidential legal counsel. Comment: Why so ?

C. No, both appointments will not be rendered void.

The test of incompatibility is that one office is subordinate of that of the other in a sense that one office can interfere with the function of other office. The CPLC will be the one to check each executive department offices and may render such act prohibited.

However, either of the two offices be chosen by me while withdrew the other. In this, way, the acceptance of one office and the forfeiture with the incompatible position is valid.

Comment: Which office would it be? Chairman of PCGG or CPLC?

3.)