SEPARATION OF POWERS solemn and sacred obligations assigned to it by the

Constitution.
1. IN RE MANZANO
166 SCRA 246
3. Casibang vs Aquino
G.R. No. L-38025, August 20, 1978
a. Considering that membership of Judge Manzano in
Provincial Committee on Justice, which discharges
a. The term “Political Question” is a question of policy.
administrative functions, will be in violation of the
Those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be
Constitution. But this does not mean the Judges should
decided by the people in their sovereign capacity; or in
adopt an attitude of monastic insensibility or
regard to which full discretionary authority has been
unbecoming indifference to the Local Committee on
delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the
Justice. Even as non-members of the same, Judges
government. It is concerned with the issues dependent
should render assistance to said Committees to help
upon wisdom, not the legality of a particular measure.
promote landable purposes for which they exist, but only
b. On the other hand, a purely justiciable question implies
when such assistance may be reasonably incidental to
a given right, an act or omission violative of said right,
the fulfillment of judicial duties.
and a remedy granted by law, for said breach of right.

2. Angara vs Electoral Commission

4. Eastern Shipping Lines vs POEA
G.R. No. 45081, July 15, 1936
G.R. No. 76633, October 18, 1988

a. The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in

a. What can be delegated is the discretion to determine on
our system of government. It obtains not through
how the law may be enforced, not what the law shall be.
express provisions but by actual division in our
The ascertainment of the latter subject is a prerogative
constitution. Each department has an exclusive
of the legislature. This prerogative cannot be abdicated
cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is
or surrendered by the legislature to the delegate.
supreme within its own sphere.
b. Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy
When the Judiciary mediates to allocate Constitutional
5. Tanada vs Cuenco
boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the
G.R. No. L-10520, February 28, 1957
other departments; it does not in reality nullify or
invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the
a. It is not within the province of the courts to pass
judgment upon the policy of legislative or executive
 action. Where, therefore, discretionary powers are
granted by the Constitution or by statute, the manner in
which those powers are exercised is not subject to
judicial review. The courts, therefore, concern
themselves only with the question as to the existence
and extent of these discretionary powers.
b. It has been repeatedly held that the question whether
certain amendments to the Constitution are invalid for
non-compliance with the procedure therein prescribed is
not a political one, and may be settled by the Courts.
c. The Senate is not clothed with full discretionary authority
in the choice of members of the Senate Electoral
Tribunal. The exercise of its power thereon is subject to
Constitutional limitations which are claimed to be
mandatory in nature. It is clearly within the legitimate
prove of the judicial department to pass upon the validity
of the proceedings in connection therewith.
6. Sanidad vs Comelec
G.R. No. L-44640, October 12, 1976
a. Ampanget ng coffee nots nag focus sa freedom of
expression.
7. Daza vs Singson
180 SCRA 496
a. The question is justiciable. The issue is one of legality not
of wisdom. The ascertainment of the manner of forming
the Commission on Appointments is distinct from the
discretion of the parties to designate their
representative. And even the questions were political in
nature, it would still come under the Expanded Powers
of Review in Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution.
DELEGATION OF POWERS
1. Garcia vs Executive Secretary
a. The enactment of appropriation, revenue, and
tariff bills, like all other bills, is of course, within
the province of the Legislative rather the
Executive. It does not follow however, that the
Eos, assuming they may be characterized as
revenue measures, are prohibited to be
exercised by the President, that they must be
enacted instead by the Congress.
b. Section 28 (2) Article VI of the Constitution is the
explicit constitutional permission to Congress to
authorize the President subject to limitations,
and restrictions as Congress may impose, to fix
within specific limits tariff rates, and other duties
or imposts. In this case, it is the Tariff and
Customs Code which authorized the President to
issue the said Eos.
2. Araneta vs Dinglasan
a. Under the 1935 Constitution, the Act which
granted emergency powers to the President
became inoperative ex proprio vigore when
Congresss met in Regular Session.
 b. In a special session, the Congress may consider
general legislation or only such acts were good
only up to the corresponding dates of
adjournment of the following sessions of the
legislature, unless sooner amended or repealed
by the National Assembly.
c. The assertion that a new legislation is need to
repeal the act would not in harmony with the
Constitution. If a new and different law were
necessary to terminate the delegation, the
period of delegation would be unlimited,
indefinite, negative, and uncertain; for Congress
might not enact the repeal, and even it would,
the repeal might not meet with the approval of
the President, and Congress might not override
the veto. In other words, it would be easier for
the Congress to delegate its powers than to take
them back. This is not right, and is not, and ought
not to be the law.
3. Rodrigueza vs Gella
a. The Eos are invalid. The President did not invoke
any actual emergencies or calamites emanating
from the last world war for which the Act was
intended. Without such invocation, such veto of
the President cannot be of merit for the
emergency he feared cannot be attributed to the
war contemplated. And even if the President
vetoed the repealing bill, the intent of the
Congress must be given due weight.
b. The Act in question may be likened to an
ordinary contract of Agency, whereby, the
consent of the Agent is necessary only in the
sense that he cannot be compelled to accept the
trust, in the same way that the principal cannot
be forced to keep the relation in eternity or at
the will of the agent. Neither can it be suggested
that the agency created under the Act is coupled
with interest.
4. People vs Vera
a. The State my question its own laws. There is no
law which prohibits the State, or its duly
authorized representative from questioning the
validity of a law. Estoppel will also not lie against
the State even if it had been using an invalid law.
b. There is undue delegation of legislative power.
Act 4221 provides that it shall only apply to
provinces where the respective provincial
boards have provided for a probation officer.
Nowhere in the law has it stated as to what
standards provincial boards should follow in
determining whether or not to apply the
probation law in the province. This only creates
a roving commission which will act arbitrarily
according to its whims.
5. Eastern Shipping Lines vs POEA
G.R. No. L-76633, October 18, 1988
a. Any attempt to abdicate the power is
unconstitutional, and void under the principle of
potestas delegate non delegare potest. The
legislative must not transfer the making of law to
anybody else, or place it anywhere but where
the people have.
b. Such delegated power constitutes not only a
right but a duty to be performed by the delegate
by the instrumentality of his own judgment
acting immediately upon the matter of
legislation and not through the intervening mind
of another.
c. The principle of non-delegation of power is
applicable to all three branches of the
Government but is especially applicable to
Legislative. The delegation of Legislative power
has become the rule and its non-delegation the
exception because of the increasing complexity
of the task of government and the growing
inability of the legislature to cope directly with
the myriad problems demanding its attention.
d. Specialization even in legislation has become
necessary because the solutions may, however,
be expected from its delegates, who are
supposed to be experts in the particular fields
assigned to them.
e. The reason given above for the delegation of
legislative powers in general are particularly
applicable to administrative bodies. With the
proliferation of the specialized activities, and
their attendant peculiar problems, the national
legislature has found it more and more
necessary to entrust to administrative agencies
the authority to issue rules to carry out general
provision of statues.
f. Test of Valid Delegation of Legislative Power to
Administrative Agencies:
Completeness Test- the law must be complete in
all its terms and conditions when it leaves the
legislature such that when it reaches the
delegate the only thing he will have to do is
enforce it.
Sufficient Standard Test- there must be
adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to
map out the boundaries of the delegate’s
authority and prevent delegation from running
riot.
Both tests are intended to prevent a total
transference of legislative authority to the
delegate who is not allowed to step into the
shoes of the legislature and exercise power
essentially legislative.
g. With this power, the administrative bodies may
implement the broad principles laid down in a
statute by “filling in” the details which the
Congress may not have the opportunity or
competence to provide. This is effected by their
promulgation of “Supplementary Regulations”
as the Implementing Rules and Regulations.
h. With the proliferation of specialized activities,
and their attendant peculiar problems, the
national legislature has found it more and more
necessary to entrust to administrative agencies
the authority to issue rules to carry out the
 general provisions of the statute. This is called
the “Power of Subordinate Legislation.”
6. US vs Ang Tang Ho
a. The questioned act fails to provide definitely and
clearly what the standard policy should contain.
The law must be complete in all its terms and
provisions when it leaves the legislative branch
of the government and nothing must be left to
the judgment of the electors or other appointee,
or delegate of the legislature, so that in form and
in substance, it is a law in all its details in present,
but which may be left to take effect in future, if
necessary, upon ascertainment of any
prescribed fact or event.
7. Ynot vs IAC
a. Panget. Police Power na discuss sa Coffee Notes
 government may be changed by the President,
8. Tablarin vs Guiterrez
a. The standard may either be expressed or
implied. The standard does not have to be
spelled out specifically. It could be implied from
the policy and purpose of the act considered as
a whole.
9. Pelaez vs Auditor General
a. Although the Congress may delegate to another
branch of the Government the power to fill in the
details in the executions, enforcement, or
administration of a law, it is essential to forestall
a violation of the Principle of Separation of
Powers.
b. The power to create municipalities is essentially
and eminently legislative in character not
executive.
c. The qualifying clause “as the public welfare may
require” which would mean that the President
may exercise such power as the public welfare
may require- such will not replace the standard
needed for a proper delegation of power. The
proper interpretation is that the President may
change the seat of the Government within any
subdivision to such place therein as the public
welfare may require. Only the seat of
when Public welfare so requires, and NOT the
creation of municipalities.