Sarmiento vs.
Mison, 156 SCRA 549
Facts:
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 284 issued by President
Corazon C. Aquino on July 25, 1987. The EO allowed members of the Cabinet,
undersecretaries, and assistant secretaries to hold multiple positions in the government and
government-owned corporations, subject to certain limitations. Petitioners argued that this
EO violated Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits the President,
Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants from holding any
other office or employment during their tenure, unless otherwise provided in the
Constitution.
Issues:
Whether the exceptions for appointive officials under Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B apply to
Cabinet members, their deputies, or assistants under Section 13, Article VII.
Whether Executive Order No. 284 is constitutional.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that the exceptions for appointive officials under Section 7, par. (2), Article
IX-B do not apply to Cabinet members, their deputies, or assistants under Section 13,
Article VII. The intent of the Constitution was to impose a stricter prohibition on the
President and his official family regarding holding multiple offices or employment. While
Section 7, Article IX-B provides a general rule applicable to all appointive public officials and
employees, Section 13, Article VII constitutes the exception specifically for the President,
Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, their deputies, and assistants. The phrase "unless
otherwise provided in this Constitution" in Section 13, Article VII refers only to those
instances expressly provided in the Constitution itself, such as the Vice-President's
appointment to the Cabinet or acting as President in certain instances. Executive Order No.
284 was declared unconstitutional as it allowed Cabinet members, undersecretaries, and
assistant secretaries to hold multiple government positions, contrary to the express
mandate of the Constitution.
Principles:
Constitutional provisions should be interpreted harmoniously, and every provision should be
given effect to avoid rendering any provision meaningless.
The intent of the Constitution, particularly regarding stricter prohibitions on certain officials,
should guide the interpretation of its provisions.
The phrase "unless otherwise provided in this Constitution" in Section 13, Article VII refers
only to specific instances provided in the Constitution itself, not to general provisions
applicable to other appointive officials.
Executive orders or regulations must not contravene the Constitution's express mandates.
When they do, they are considered null and void.
