CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION vs.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Subject Matter:
Executive Order No. 284 vs Section 13, Article VII in relation to Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B

Nature of the Case:

Seeking a declaration of the unconstitutionality of Executive Order No. 284.

SC Decision:
Executive Order No. 284 is ruled as unconstitutional as contrary to the intent of the framers

Legal Doctrine:
The Court in construing a Constitution should bear in mind the object sought to be accomplished by its
adoption, and the evils, if any, sought to be prevented or remedied. The object is to ascertain the reason which induced
the framers of the Constitution to enact the particular provision and the purpose sought to be accomplished thereby,
in order to construe the whole as to make the words consonant to that reason and calculated to effect that purpose.

Also:
It is a well-established rule in Constitutional construction that no one provision of the Constitution is to be separated
from all the others, to be considered alone, but that all the provisions bearing upon a particular subject are to be
brought into view and to be so interpreted as to effectuate the great purposes of the instrument.17 Sections bearing
on a particular subject should be considered and interpreted together as to effectuate the whole purpose of the
Constitution18 and one section is not to be allowed to defeat another, if by any reasonable construction, the two can
be made to stand together.19

FACTS:
Former president Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order No. 284 issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on
July 25, 1987 which allows the member of the Cabinet, undersecretary or assistant secretary or other appointive
officials of the Executive Department to hold not more than two positions in the government.
Anti-Graft League of the Philippines, Inc, et. al petitioned the said EO as being contrary to the provisions of Section 13,
Article VII in relation to Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B which provides that such officials shall not hold any other office.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Executive Order No. 284 contravenes the provisions of Article VII in relation to Section 7, par.
(2), and Article IX-B.

RULING:
Yes, Executive Order No. 284 is unconstitutional and inconsistent with the said constitutional provisions.

Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides as follows:

Sec. 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.

While Article IX-B, Section 7, par. (2)8 provides:Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his
position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the government or any subdivision, agency
or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

In this case, the executive order allows the said public officials to hold a maximum of two offices not relating to their
primary function while the provisions states that they shall hold only one office during their tenure. Thus, rendering
the EO void and contrary to the provisions of the constitution.
CHIONGBIAN vs. DE LEON

Subject Matter:
Article IV of the 1935 Constitution provides:

SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.
(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution, had been
elected to public office in the Philippine Islands.
(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine
citizenship.
(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Nature of the Case:

Seeking to permanently prohibit respondents from cancelling the registration certificates of petitioner's
vessels and from rescinding the sale of three vessels to petitioner.
SC Decision:
SC ruled in favor of the petitioner on the ground that he is a legitimate Filipino citizen.

Legal Doctrine:
A settled rule of our jurisprudence that a legitimate minor child follows the citizenship of his father.
FACTS:
In 1925, Victoriano Chiongbian, a Chinese citizen and father of the herein petitioner William Chiongbian, was
elected to and held the office of municipal councilor of the town of Plaridel, Occidental Misamis.
The 1935 Philippine Constitution was adopted with a provision granting Filipino citizenship to foreigners who had been
elected to public office in the Philippine Islands before the adoption of the 1935 Constitution. Thus, granting his father
a Filipino citizenship. William Chiongbian was still a minor during the adoption of the said Constitution.
Respondents contends that Subsection 2 of Section 1 of article IV does not grant minor descendants and provision was
only included to accommodate a certain delegate.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Subsection 2 of Section 1 of article IV grants minor descendants of Filipino citizenship?

RULING:
Yes, that ubsection 2 of Section 1 of article IV of the 1935 Constitution grants descendants the privilege of
Filipino citizenship.

Subsection 2 of Section 1 of article IV of the 1935 Constitution provides:

(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution, had been
elected to public office in the Philippine Islands.

In this case, Victoriano Chiongbian became Filipino citizen during the adoption of the 1935 Constitution by reason of
him being elected to public office before the adoption of the Constitution. His son, William Chiongbian, a minor, also
became a Filipino citizen by virtue of Subsection 3, Section 1 of Article IV.

The mere deletion of the phrase — "and their descendants," — is not determinative of any conclusion. It could have
been done because the learned framers of our Constitution considered it superfluous, knowing full well that the
meaning of such a phrase was adequately covered by subsection 3