The case you're referring to involves two consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality
of Executive Order No. 284 issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on July 25, 1987. The
petitioners argue that the executive order violates Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution, which imposes restrictions on members of the executive branch, including Cabinet
members, deputies, and assistants, from holding any other office or employment during their
tenure.
Key Facts:
1. Executive Order No. 284 (EO 284):
o Section 1 allows Cabinet members, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries, and
other appointive officials to hold up to two additional positions in the
government or government corporations (with exceptions for ad hoc bodies or
committees, and boards where the President is the Chairman).
o Section 2 mandates that if any executive official holds more than two additional
positions, they must relinquish the excess positions in favor of a subordinate
official. However, no official may hold more than two positions, excluding their
primary one.
o Section 3 requires that at least one-third of the members of boards in
government-owned or controlled corporations be secretaries, undersecretaries,
or assistant secretaries to protect the government's interests.
2. Constitutional Provision (Section 13, Article VII, 1987 Constitution):
o This provision prohibits the President, Vice-President, Cabinet members, and
their deputies or assistants from holding any other office or employment during
their tenure, unless otherwise provided by the Constitution. Additionally, it
prohibits them from practicing any profession, participating in business, or
having financial interests in government contracts or privileges.
3. Petitioners’ Argument:
o The petitioners argue that EO 284 violates Section 13, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution, which aims to ensure that officials in the executive branch focus
solely on their primary responsibilities and avoid conflicts of interest. The
petitioners claim that EO 284’s allowance for additional government positions
runs counter to this provision, as it permits officials to hold multiple positions,
which could create potential conflicts of interest and undermine their duties.
Legal Issue:
The central legal issue is whether Executive Order No. 284 is unconstitutional because it
allegedly contravenes Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, which restricts Cabinet
members and other high-ranking executive officials from holding multiple government positions
during their tenure.
Analysis:
Section 13, Article VII was designed to ensure that high-ranking government officials do
not divide their attention and responsibilities by holding multiple government positions.
It also aims to prevent conflicts of interest that could arise if officials have financial or
other interests in government contracts or businesses.
EO 284, on the other hand, permits Cabinet members and other high-ranking officials to
hold additional positions in government agencies or corporations, subject to certain
limitations. The petitioners argue that this allowance undermines the constitutional
provision’s goal of ensuring the full and undivided attention of these officials to their
duties.
Conclusion:
The case likely centers on the interpretation of constitutional intent—whether the Constitution
intended to strictly prohibit government officials from holding multiple positions, or whether
certain exceptions, as provided in EO 284, can be justified. If the Supreme Court finds EO 284 to
be inconsistent with the constitutional provision, it could declare the executive order
unconstitutional.
Would you like me to assist you further with analyzing this case or explain any other related
legal concepts?
