(Philippine legal context)

1. Why this matters

Government service is a public trust. Philippine law expects public officials and employees to devote their working time and loyalty to the public interest, avoid conflicts, and prevent the government position from becoming a platform for private gain. Two recurring compliance problems follow from those expectations:

Double compensation – receiving more than what the law allows from government funds (or government-linked sources) for the same period, or receiving additional pay without legal basis; and
Secondary employment / outside work – holding another job, engaging in private practice, or running a business that conflicts with official duties or is done without required permission.

RA 6713 (the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) is a central statute in this area. But it operates alongside the Constitution, civil service rules, COA audit standards, and agency-specific regulations. A correct analysis usually requires reading RA 6713 together with those other rules.

2. Core legal framework (how the rules fit together)

A. RA 6713: ethical standards + specific prohibitions

RA 6713 sets:

Norms of conduct (e.g., commitment to public interest, professionalism, justness, sincerity, political neutrality, responsiveness).
Duties such as disclosure of certain interests and relationships.
Prohibited acts and transactions (Section 7), including conflicts of interest, improper outside employment, and participation in transactions where the official’s office is involved.

While RA 6713 is often discussed as an “ethics law,” many of its provisions have direct compliance consequences (administrative, civil, and criminal exposure).

B. Constitutional rule against additional/double compensation and multiple positions

The Constitution contains a strong policy against:

Holding multiple government posts or employment in a manner not allowed; and
Receiving additional or double compensation unless specifically authorized by law.

In practice, RA 6713 is frequently invoked together with the Constitution when evaluating whether receiving multiple pay streams (salary + honoraria + board pay + per diems, etc.) is lawful.

C. Civil Service Commission rules on outside employment and conflicts

Civil service rules (and agency HR policies issued under them) commonly require:

Prior written authority for outside employment;
Proof that the outside work is outside office hours and does not prejudice government service; and
No conflict of interest.

RA 6713 supplies the ethical and conflict-of-interest backbone; CSC rules typically provide the procedural compliance steps.

D. COA (Commission on Audit) and the “disallowance” dimension

Even when conduct does not lead to criminal prosecution, COA may:

Disallow payments lacking legal basis, and
Require refund under applicable rules.

Thus, “double compensation” issues often become audit disallowance cases in addition to (or instead of) disciplinary cases.

3. Who is covered

RA 6713 applies broadly to public officials and employees in government, including:

National government agencies,
Local government units (LGUs),
Government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) and government instrumentalities,
Public schools, state universities and colleges (with additional rules for faculty/admin roles).

Some categories (e.g., consultants, job order / contract of service) can raise classification issues. But as a practical compliance matter, government entities frequently impose RA 6713-compatible standards and conflict checks even when a worker’s status is not classic “plantilla.”

4. Understanding “double compensation”

A. What “double compensation” generally means in government compliance

In ordinary compliance usage, “double compensation” refers to any situation where a government person receives multiple government-funded payments that:

Cover the same time period (e.g., being paid two full-time salaries simultaneously), or
Constitute additional compensation without legal authorization, or
Create a prohibited combination of compensation because the person is effectively holding incompatible positions.

It is not limited to “two salaries.” It can include:

Salary from one agency + salary from another agency,
Salary + honoraria/allowances/fees characterized as compensation,
Salary + board compensation/per diems that exceed what is legally allowed,
Payments labeled “consultancy,” “professional fee,” or “allowance” that function as compensation.

B. The usual legal test: is there specific legal authority?

A reliable way to analyze double compensation is:

Identify each pay stream (salary, honorarium, per diem, allowance, bonus, professional fee, board pay).
Identify the legal basis authorizing that pay stream (law, appropriation, DBM authority, charter, ordinance, valid board resolution where authorized).
Check compatibility:
- Is the person allowed to hold both roles or perform both functions?
- Are the payments for the same time period or overlapping full-time commitments?
- Does one payment effectively compensate work already covered by the regular salary?
Check limitations:
- Caps, prohibitions, and conditions (e.g., limits on honoraria/board pay, restrictions on receiving compensation from government funds, and “no additional compensation unless authorized by law” policy).

If a payment lacks a proper legal basis or violates a prohibition/cap, it becomes vulnerable to COA disallowance and may also support administrative liability.

C. Common high-risk patterns

Two full-time government jobs (e.g., two regular plantilla positions)
- The problem is not just “two paychecks,” but the incompatibility with full-time public service obligations.
Full-time government position + paid “consultancy” in another government office
- This is often treated as additional compensation for time that should be devoted to official duties, unless a law or valid authority clearly allows it and conflict rules are satisfied.
Salary + repeated honoraria/per diems from committees, boards, or projects
- Even where honoraria are allowed in some contexts, recurring payments can be questioned if they become disguised additional compensation, exceed caps, or lack authority.
LGU/National overlap
- Example: a person employed in a national agency simultaneously receiving compensation tied to an LGU role that functions as another government post, or vice versa.

5. Secondary employment and outside work under RA 6713 (the “moonlighting” problem)

RA 6713 is especially relevant to secondary employment because it is fundamentally a conflict-of-interest statute. The key question is not merely “Is a second job allowed?” but:

Does the outside work compromise public interest, create conflict, undermine professionalism, or involve prohibited participation in transactions connected to the official’s office?

A. Core RA 6713 restrictions that affect secondary employment

RA 6713 Section 7 (Prohibited Acts and Transactions) is typically the anchor, especially the prohibitions on:

Conflict of interest and participation in transactions where the official’s office has involvement, and
Engaging in private business or practice that:
- Conflicts with official functions,
- Takes improper advantage of the government position, or
- Is done in a way that impairs public service.

RA 6713 also requires standards of:

Commitment to public interest and professionalism—these norms are often cited in disciplinary cases involving moonlighting during office hours, underperformance due to outside work, or using official influence to benefit a private sideline.

B. The typical rule in practice: outside employment is not automatically forbidden, but it is conditioned

Across Philippine government practice (RA 6713 + CSC + agency rules), secondary employment is usually permitted only when all of these are satisfied:

No conflict of interest
- The outside work must not be in an industry/transaction the employee regulates, inspects, licenses, prosecutes, audits, approves, funds, or otherwise materially influences.
No use of official time
- Outside work should be performed outside office hours, without “double billing” government time.
No use of government resources
- No use of government facilities, equipment, personnel, confidential information, letterhead, or official communications for private work.
No impairment of performance
- Government performance must not suffer (attendance, responsiveness, output, conflict with duty schedules).
Prior written authority when required
- Many agencies require prior approval; failing to secure it can itself be an administrative offense even if the work is otherwise benign.
Proper disclosures
- Business interests and financial connections that intersect with official functions should be disclosed, including in required declarations where applicable.

C. Private practice (law, medicine, engineering, etc.) while in government

“Private practice” is a recurring issue:

Some government roles are explicitly barred from private practice by their governing laws (e.g., prosecutors and certain positions in the justice sector, specific regulatory roles, or positions with statutory prohibitions).
Even when not expressly barred, RA 6713 conflict-of-interest rules still apply strictly:
- A government lawyer or officer must avoid representing private interests where the government has an interest, and must avoid appearances of influence peddling.
- A regulator cannot privately consult for regulated entities.
- A government doctor in a public hospital must not allow private clinic work to compromise public duty schedules.

Teaching, lecturing, speaking engagements, writing, or academic work are often viewed as lower-risk forms of secondary activity, but still subject to:

Time and approval rules,
Non-conflict,
Non-use of government resources.

D. Business ownership and entrepreneurial activity

Owning or running a business is not automatically prohibited, but RA 6713 makes it risky when:

The business deals with the employee’s agency, LGU, or sector,
The employee can influence permits, contracts, grants, inspections, enforcement actions, accreditation, or approvals affecting that business,
The employee uses government influence, information, or networks improperly.

Even passive ownership can raise conflict questions when the official’s office has jurisdiction over the business.

6. Conflicts of interest: the heart of RA 6713 in this topic

A. What counts as a conflict of interest (practical meaning)

A conflict of interest exists when a public official/employee’s private interest (financial, business, professional, or relational) interferes or appears to interfere with objective performance of public duties.

RA 6713-style conflict analysis includes:

Actual conflict (direct and present),
Potential conflict (likely to arise based on duties and interests),
Apparent conflict (public perception undermines trust).

B. “Participation” is broader than signing

For RA 6713 purposes, risk is not limited to the person who signs the final approval. Exposure can arise from:

Recommendation,
Evaluation,
Endorsement,
Supervision of the process,
Influence over subordinates,
Informal pressure.

This matters when secondary employment places an employee inside a private entity that transacts with the government unit where the employee works.

C. Disclosure and inhibition/recusal are not always enough

In some settings, disclosure and recusal reduce risk, but do not cure prohibited situations where the law flatly forbids the relationship or transaction. Where the employee’s role is structurally incompatible (e.g., regulator consulting for regulated entity), “recusal” may be inadequate because the conflict is embedded.

7. How double compensation and secondary employment overlap

These two issues frequently appear together:

A person takes a second job and is paid while also being paid as a full-time government employee → time overlap becomes a double compensation concern.
A person is paid “honoraria” or “professional fees” by another government office while holding a primary position → often framed as additional compensation + possible conflict.
A person sits on boards/committees and receives per diems/honoraria → may raise double compensation and RA 6713 conflict questions if the board’s actions intersect with the person’s official functions.

8. Compliance playbook (what government employees are usually expected to do)

A. Before accepting outside work

Check whether your position has an explicit statutory prohibition on outside employment or private practice.
Map your official functions (approvals, regulation, procurement, licensing, enforcement, audit, adjudication).
Compare with the outside work (industry, counterparties, clients, transactions with government).
Obtain written authority if your agency requires it.
Document scheduling showing the work is outside office hours and does not affect performance.
Avoid government resources (including staff assistance, printers, vehicles, official email, office space).
Disclose business interests/financial connections where required and keep declarations updated.

B. If the outside party transacts with government

Treat as high risk. RA 6713 issues become acute where:

The outside employer/client is a bidder, contractor, permit applicant, licensee, regulated entity, respondent/complainant, grantee, or counterpart of your agency/LGU.

The safest posture is to avoid the engagement entirely unless the relationship is clearly permissible and insulated by law and policy.

C. For receiving multiple government-related payments

Identify all sources and determine whether they are government funds or government-controlled funds.
Confirm specific authority for each payment type.
Check caps/limits and whether the payment is truly for distinct services not already compensated by your salary.
Keep records (appointment papers, authority to receive, board/committee designation, pay documents).
Expect COA scrutiny when the arrangement looks like an add-on to regular compensation.

9. Consequences of violations

A. Under RA 6713

RA 6713 provides penalties that can include:

Imprisonment (up to five years), or
Fine (up to ₱5,000), or
Both, and
Disqualification from public office.

Even where criminal prosecution is not pursued, the same facts can support administrative discipline.

B. Administrative liability (often the most immediate risk)

Possible outcomes include:

Suspension,
Dismissal from service,
Forfeiture of benefits,
Disqualification from reemployment in government,
Other sanctions depending on the offense classification and rules applied.

C. Audit disallowance and refund exposure

Where payments are found unauthorized, COA may disallow them. Depending on circumstances and applicable rules, refund may be pursued against:

The recipient,
Approving/certifying officials,
Those who facilitated payment.

10. Illustrative scenarios (applied RA 6713 reasoning)

A licensing officer runs a consultancy helping applicants secure permits from the same office.
- High conflict of interest; likely prohibited. Even if done after hours, the conflict and influence risk are central.
A full-time government employee receives a second full-time salary in another agency.
- Classic double compensation/time-overlap problem, plus possible prohibition on holding multiple positions.
A public school teacher accepts paid weekend tutoring.
- Lower conflict risk if outside hours and not using government resources; may still require authorization depending on agency rules, and must not impair performance.
A procurement employee owns a business that supplies goods to the employee’s agency through friends/relatives or indirect participation.
- RA 6713 concerns remain even with indirect structures; “participation” and conflict rules may still be triggered.
A government doctor does private clinic work during government duty hours and still receives full salary.
- Both secondary employment misconduct and double compensation/time misuse issues; strong disciplinary exposure.

11. Key takeaways (the governing principles)

Specific legal authority is the dividing line for receiving additional compensation beyond what regular salary laws and rules permit.
Conflict of interest is the central filter for outside work under RA 6713; even “after-hours” work can be prohibited if it intersects with official functions.
Approval + documentation matter: where outside employment is allowed, it is typically conditioned on written authorization, strict time separation, and non-use of government resources.
COA risk is real: even arrangements that feel “common practice” may be disallowed if not anchored in clear authority.