FACTS:

The case involves two petitions seeking a declaration of the unconstitutionality of Executive Order No. 284, which allows members of the Cabinet, undersecretaries, and assistant secretaries to hold additional positions in the government. The petitioners argue that this Executive Order violates the provision in the 1987 Constitution that prohibits public officials, including Cabinet members, from holding any other office or employment during their tenure. The petitioners also challenge the Department of Justice's Opinion No. 73, series of 1987, and Executive Order No. 284, claiming that these documents improperly link provisions of the Constitution. The Solicitor General argues that the Department of Justice's opinion has been clarified by Opinion No. 129.

The case arises from the practice of appointive officials holding multiple positions in the government, which started during President Ferdinand Marcos' time and led to abuses by some officials. The petitioners argue that the exceptions to the prohibition on holding dual or multiple positions should only be those expressly provided in the Constitution, while the respondents argue that the exceptions also include those stated in another provision of the Constitution.

The case also involves a condemnation of certain individuals who held membership in multiple governing boards of government-owned and controlled corporations. The report by the Commission on Audit revealed the number of agencies in which each individual held multiple positions. The 1986 Constitutional Commission, in drafting the 1987 Constitution, aimed to address public outrage over the holding of multiple governmental offices. The provision in the Constitution specifically prohibits the President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, their deputies, and assistants from holding any other office or employment during their tenure, unless otherwise provided in the Constitution itself.

This case also focuses on the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution and the discussions during the Constitutional Commission meetings. Commissioner Foz emphasized the need for stricter measures for the President and Cabinet members due to their exercise of more powers, which increases the possibility of abuse. Commissioner Foz expressed that while other appointive officials in the civil service are generally allowed to hold other office or employment in the government, members of the Cabinet, their deputies, and assistants can only do so when expressly authorized by law or by the primary functions of their positions.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the sweeping prohibitions imposed on the President and his official family, which are not similarly imposed on other public officials or employees, indicate that the President and his official family are treated as a class by themselves and subject to stricter prohibitions.

2. Whether the qualifying phrase "unless otherwise provided in this Constitution" in Section 13, Article VII refers to the exceptions provided under Section 7, Article IX-B of the Constitution.

3. Whether the prohibition against holding multiple government offices or employment applies to posts occupied by Executive officials in an ex-officio capacity and without additional compensation.

4. Whether the term "primary functions" refers to the chief or principal function and can encompass multiple functions.

5. Whether additional duties and functions imposed on cabinet officials are prohibited by the Constitution

6. Whether cabinet officials are entitled to receive additional compensation for performing ex-officio functions

7. Whether or not the President and his official family are exempted from the prohibition of holding multiple offices or employment in the government, as stated in Section 7, par. 2, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution.

8. Whether or not Executive Order No. 284, which restricts the number of positions that Cabinet members may hold, is constitutional.

9. Whether Executive Order No. 284 is null and void

10. Whether the respondents are entitled to retain the per diem, allowances, or other emoluments received for services rendered in the questioned positions

RULING:

1. Yes. The sweeping prohibitions imposed on the President and his official family, which are not similarly imposed on other public officials or employees, indicate that the President and his official family are treated as a class by themselves and subject to stricter prohibitions. The intent of the 1987 Constitution is to impose stricter checks and restraints on the President and his official family due to their exercise of greater powers and the possibility of abuse.

2. No. The qualifying phrase "unless otherwise provided in this Constitution" in Section 13, Article VII does not refer to the exceptions provided under Section 7, Article IX-B of the Constitution. To construe it as such would render nugatory and meaningless the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to impose a stricter prohibition on the President, Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants with respect to holding other offices or employment in the government during their tenure. The provisions in question must be interpreted harmoniously to effectuate the whole purpose of the Constitution.

3. The prohibition against holding dual or multiple offices or employment does not apply to posts occupied by the Executive officials specified in Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution in an ex-officio capacity and without additional compensation.

4. The term "primary functions" refers to the chief or principal function and can encompass multiple functions if they are closely related to and required by the official's primary function.

5. Additional duties and functions imposed on cabinet officials are not prohibited by the Constitution, as long as these are required by their primary functions and are performed in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law. Such additional duties and functions are justified by the demands of efficiency, policy direction, continuity, and coordination in the Executive Branch.

6. Cabinet officials are not entitled to receive additional compensation for performing ex-officio functions. The services rendered in the ex-officio position are already covered by the compensation attached to their principal office. The Constitution prohibits the payment of additional compensation for these services.

7. The exemption of the President and his official family from the prohibition on holding multiple offices or employment in the government is based on legal principles governing additional functions and duties of public officials, rather than by virtue of Section 7, par. 2, Article IX-B. Only additional functions and duties "required," as opposed to "allowed," by the primary functions may be considered as not constituting "any other office."

8. Executive Order No. 284, which ostensibly restricts the number of positions that Cabinet members may hold, is unconstitutional, as it allows them to hold multiple offices or employment in direct contravention of the express mandate of Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.

9. Executive Order No. 284 is declared null and void and is set aside.

10. The respondents are entitled to retain the per diem, allowances, or other emoluments received for services rendered in the questioned positions, subject to the qualification stated in the ruling.

PRINCIPLES:

• The President and his official family are treated as a class by themselves and subject to stricter prohibitions compared to other public officials or employees.

• The provisions of the Constitution bearing on a particular subject should be considered and interpreted together to effectuate the whole purpose of the Constitution.

• The court must lean in favor of a construction that will render every word of the Constitution operative, rather than one that may make the words idle and nugatory.

• The language of the Constitution that is prohibitory should be understood as intended to be a positive and unequivocal negation.

• The phrase "unless otherwise provided in this Constitution" refers only to specific instances cited in the Constitution itself.

• Ex-officio positions are held "from office; by virtue of office" and do not require additional appointment or authority.

• Functions required to be performed in an ex-officio capacity must be closely related to and required by the official's primary function.

• The Constitution should not be interpreted as demanding the impossible or leading to absurd consequences.

• Additional duties and functions imposed on cabinet officials must be required by their primary functions and performed in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law.

• Cabinet officials are not entitled to receive additional compensation for performing ex-officio functions, as these services are already covered by the compensation attached to their principal office.

• The interpretation of the Constitution depends more on how it was understood by the people adopting it than in the framers' understanding thereof.

• Ex-officio posts held by executive officials without additional compensation and as required by the primary functions of their office do not fall under the definition of "any other office" within the prohibition.

• Cabinet members should be allowed to focus on their primary positions without the distraction of other governmental offices or employment to ensure maximum benefits from their expertise and avoid inefficiency.

• De facto officers, who in good faith have had possession of the office and discharged the duties pertaining thereto, are entitled to emoluments for actual services rendered.

• Doctrine of de facto officers: A de facto officer is one who is in possession of an office and is discharging its duties under color of authority, such as a valid appointment or election. In the case where a person is found to be a de facto officer, he or she is entitled to retain the salary, fees, and other compensations attached to the office.

• Equitable grounds: The doctrine of allowing a de facto officer to retain the compensations attached to the office is supported on equitable grounds, as it would be unjust for the public to benefit from the services of an officer de facto and avoid any liability to pay for such services.