CIVIL LIBERTIES

respondent
G.R. No. 83815

UNION,

petitioner, vs. THE

EXECUTIVE

SECRETARY,

February 22, 1991

FACTS:

The two petitions in this case sought to declare unconstitutional Executive

Order No. 284 issued by then President Corazon C. Aquino.

The petitioners alleged that Section 1, 2 and 3 of EO 284 contravenes the

provision of Sec. 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution

The assailed provisions of EO 284 are as follows:

Section 1: A cabinet member, undersecretary or assistant secretary or other
appointive officials of the Executive Department may in addition to his primary
position, hold not more than two positions in the government and government
corporations and receive the corresponding compensation therefor.
Section 2: If they hold more positions more than what is required in section 1, they
must relinquish the excess position in favor of the subordinate official who is next in
rank, but in no case shall any official hold more than two positions other than his
primary position.
Section 3: AT least 1/3 of the members of the boards of such corporation should
either be a secretary, or undersecretary, or assistant secretary.

13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, meanwhile, states that:

Section 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.
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree
of the President shall not, during his tenure, be appointed as Members of the
Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries,
Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including governmentowned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.

PETITIONERS CONTENTION: EO 284 adds exceptions to Section 13 of

Article VII other than those provided in the constitution. According to the
petitioners, the only exceptions against holding any other office or employment
in government are those provided in the Constitution namely: 1. The Vice
President (may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet under Section 3
par.2 of Article VII: The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the
Cabinet. Such appointment requires no confirmation.) and the secretary of

justice (as an ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of
Sec. 8 of article VIII: A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the
supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio
Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as
ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a
retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private
sector.)
ISSUE: Whether or not the Cabinet Secretaries holding ex-officio positions and
offices under Executive Order No. 284 are entitled to emoluments (compensation
and other benefits).
HELD: Yes. During their tenure in the questioned positions, respondents may be
considered de facto officers and as such entitled to emoluments for actual services
rendered. It has been held that "in cases where there is no de jure, officer, a de
facto officer, who, in good faith has had possession of the office and has discharged
the duties pertaining thereto, is legally entitled to the emoluments of the office, and
may in an appropriate action recover the salary, fees and other compensations
attached to the office. This doctrine is, undoubtedly, supported on equitable
grounds since it seems unjust that the public should benefit by the services of an
officer de facto and then be freed from all liability to pay any one for such
services. Any per diem, allowances or other emoluments received by the
respondents by virtue of actual services rendered in the questioned positions may
therefore be retained by them.