The prohibition on incompatible office merely uses the words “hold any other

office” which do not point to appointment or designation. In its ordinary sense, holding an
office requires appointment or election to the office. In reading the Constitutions words as
they are, the rule of construction applied is verbal egis non est recedendum, index animi sermo est
which means that there should be no derparture from the words of the statute, because
speech is the index of intention1. On its face, the provision does not include mere
designation as defined by law. However, the phrase “hold office” may be construed in
different manner. If such provision is ambiguous, the rule of ratio legis est anima should be
applied. The rule means that the intent of the persons who drafted the Constitution have to
be taken in to consideration. In the case of Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive secretary 2 the
Supreme Court had a chance to rule on the intent of the framers in the provisions
prohibiting members of the Cabinet from occupying more than one position by saying that
this was because during the dictatorship, government power was concentrated on a few
individuals who held multiple offices and that the intent of the framers was to prevent that
evil. The ruling is analogously applicable here as the President plans on concentrating the
power of the Bureau of Customs with that of his greater control found in the military. The
danger can be seen in the case of Gudani vs. Senga3 where the Supreme Court held that the
President can issue what amounts to a gag order to military personnel but he cannot do the
same to civilian officials of the government. The danger is present in the issue at hand.

1 Limson vs. Wack Wack Condominium Corporation. G.R. No. 188802, February 11, 2011 as cited in Gatmaytan,
Dante. Legal Method Essentials 3.0. 2016
2 Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive secretary G.R. No. 83896, February 22, 1991
3 Gudani vs. Senga. G.R. No. 170165. August 15, 2006