G.R. No. 104732 June 22, 1993
ROBERTO A. FLORES, DANIEL Y. FIGUEROA, ROGELIO T. PALO, DOMINGO A. JADLOC, CARLITO T. CRUZ and MANUEL P. REYES, petitioners, vs. HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, Executive Secretary, and RICHARD J. GORDON, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, claiming to be taxpayers and employees of the U.S. Facility at Subic, Zambales, filed an original petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 13, paragraph (d) of Republic Act No. 7227 (the “Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992”). The challenged proviso states: “Provided, however, That for the first year of its operations from the effectivity of this Act, the mayor of the City of Olongapo shall be appointed as the chairman and chief executive officer of the Subic Authority.” Pursuant to this law, respondent Mayor Richard J. Gordon of Olongapo City was appointed Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA). Petitioners contend this proviso violates: (1) Section 7, first paragraph, Article IX-B of the Constitution, which prohibits elective officials from being eligible for appointment or designation to any public office during their tenure; (2) Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution , as it constitutes a congressional appointment rather than a presidential appointment; and (3) Section 261(g) of the Omnibus Election Code, as the appointment was made within the prohibited 45-day period before the May 11, 1992 elections.

ISSUE

Whether the proviso in Section 13, paragraph (d) of R.A. 7227, which directs the President to appoint the Mayor of Olongapo City as Chairman and CEO of the SBMA, violates the constitutional proscription under Section 7, Article IX-B against the appointment or designation of elective officials to other government posts during their tenure.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court declared the proviso in Section 13, paragraph (d) of R.A. 7227 unconstitutional for violating Section 7, first paragraph, Article IX-B of the Constitution. The Court held that the constitutional provision is a clear and stringent prohibition without any exception for elective officials, unlike the second paragraph governing appointive officials which allows exceptions “by law or by the primary functions of his position.” The Court rejected the argument that the SBMA posts were ex officio to the mayoral position, as the law’s use of the phrase “shall be appointed” clearly indicates an appointive, not an ex officio, capacity. The legislative intent was for the posts to be appointive. The constitutional proscription aims to prevent the concentration of public positions, ensure full-time service, and prevent elective officials from neglecting their constituents by seeking or accepting other government appointments. Since the proviso directly contravenes this explicit constitutional prohibition, it is invalid. The Court did not find it necessary to rule on the other alleged violations.