Anda di halaman 1dari 6


By: Atty.Fred | January 29, 2008 in Elections and Constitutional Law
7 Replies | Related posts at the bottom of article

The Philippines is a democratic and republican state. As a republican state, sovereignty resides in the People
and all government authority emanates from them (Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1). “A Republican form of
government rests on the conviction that sovereignty should reside in the people and that all government
authority must emanate from them. It abhors the concentration of power on one or a few, cognizant that power,
when absolute, can lead to abuse, but it also shuns a direct and unbridled rule by the people, a veritable
kindling to the passionate fires of anarchy. Our people have accepted this notion and decided to delegate the
basic state authority to principally three branches of government — the Executive, the Legislative, and the
Judiciary – each branch being supreme in its own sphere but with constitutional limits and a firm tripod
of checks and balances .”

The Executive Branch

The executive branch is headed by the President, who is elected by a direct vote of the people. The term of
office of the President, as well as the Vice-President, is six (6) years. As head of the Executive Department, the
President is the Chief Executive. He represents the government as a whole and sees to it that all laws are
enforced by the officials and employees of his department. He has control over the executive department,
bureaus and offices. This means that he has the authority to assume directly the functions of the executive
department, bureau and office or interfere with the discretion of its officials. Corollary to the power of control,
the President also has the duty of supervising the enforcement of laws for the maintenance of general peace
and public order. Thus, he is granted administrative power over bureaus and offices under his control to enable
him to discharge his duties effectively.

The President exercises general supervision over all local government units and is also the Commander-in-
Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

Under the existing Presidential form of government, the executive and legislative branches are entirely
separate, subject only to the mechanisms of checks and balances. There were attempts to amend the
Constitution in order to shift to a parliamentary system, but these moves were struck down by the Supreme
Court. The most recent petition that reached the Supreme Court is Lambino vs. COMELEC.

The Legislative Branch

The legislative branch, which has the authority to make, alter or repeal laws (see also the definition of
“legislative power“), is the Congress. “Congress is vested with the tremendous power of the purse,
traditionally recognized in the constitutional provision that ‘no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except
in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.’ It comprehends both the power to generate money by taxation
(the power to tax) and the power to spend it (the power to appropriate). The power to appropriate carries with it
the power to specify the amount that may be spent and the purpose for which it may be spent.

Under a bicameral system, the Congress is composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The Senate is composed of twenty-four (24) Senators, who are elected at large by the qualified voters of the
Philippines. The term of office of the Senators is six (6) years.
The House of Representatives, on the other hand, is composed of not more than two hundred and fifty (250)
members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who are elected from legislative districts apportioned among the
provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila area, and those who are elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations. The term of office of members of the House
of Representatives, also called “Congressmen,” is three (3) years.

The Judiciary

Judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. The
judiciary has the “moderating power” to “determine the proper allocation of powers― between the
branches of government. When the “judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert
any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature,
but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting
claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights
which that instrument secures and guarantees to them.” In the words of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno:
“The Judiciary may not have the power of the sword, may not have the power of the purse, but it has the
power to interpret the Constitution, and the unerring lessons of history tell us that rightly wielded, that power
can make a difference for good.―

While Congress has the power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts,
Congress cannot deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction provided in the Constitution. No law shall also
be passed reorganizing the judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its members. The Supreme
Court also has administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof, having the power to
discipline or dismiss judges of lower courts.

The Supreme Court is composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or, in its
discretion, in divisions of three, five or seven members. A member of the Supreme Court must be a natural-
born citizen of the Philippines, at least forty (40) years of age and must have been for fifteen (15) years or
more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the pratice of law in the Philippines. Justices hold office during
good behavior until they reach the age of seventy (70) years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of
their office.

* Sources: Francisco, Jr. vs. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 10 November 2003, main decision
and the separate opinions of Justices Vitug and Corona; Ople vs. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, 23 July 1998.

Related Posts:

1. Habeas corpus
2. National Territory
3. Constitutional Commissions
4. Amendments and Revisions
5. Boy Scouts: Homosexuality and the right of Expression

Post navigation
← Last Will and Testament: Basic DiscussionAnnulment in the Philippines: Questions and Answers (Part
3) →

7 thoughts on “Branches of the Philippine Government: Separation of Powers”

1. arias_louieFebruary 5, 2012 at 7:07 pm

“The Judiciary may not have the power of the sword, may not have the power of the purse, but it has
the power to interpret the Constitution”

A very dangerous doctrine….

Sa pag-iinterpret kasi sa ating Constitution. Ang equivalent nito ay:

a.) Lawmaking – Gumagawa ka ng Batas

Sole duties and functions dapat ng Legislative Branch. Hindi ng Judicial Branch.

b.) Amendments – binabago mo ang mga nakasulat o probisyon sa ating Constitution.

Sole duties and functions dapat ng Constitutional Convention (Con Con or Constitutional Assembly
(Con Ass) Delegates. Hindi ng Judicial Branch.

Ganito tuloy yung nangyari….

1.) Ni-legalized nito ang appointment ni then Associate Justice Renato Corona as Chief Justice ng
ating Supreme Court.

Kahit na ito ay labag sa ating 1987 Constitution ARTICLE VII Section 15

“Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a
President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to
executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger
public safety.”

2.) Sinang-ayunan o inaprobahan nito ang pagkakaroon ng panibagong Distrito ng Camarines Sur
para lang maging Congressman ang anak ni Gloria Macapagal Arroyo na si Dato Arroyo.

Kahit na hindi umabot ang Distrito nito sa at least 250,000 Population na nakasaad sa ating 1987
Constitution ARTICLE VI Section 5. (3)

“Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent
territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall
have at least one representative.”

3.) Ang hindi nito pagsunod sa nakasulat o probisyon sa ating 1987 Constitution ARTICLE XI
Section 17

“A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be
required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case
of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court,
the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with
general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.”

Section 8 of RA 6713, also known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
and Employees.

Kaya panukala ko….

Kapag natuloy yung pagbabago sa ating Constitution o Charter Change.

Bago ma-ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite ang ating magiging Constitution.

Ibigay na dapat ang Interpretation nito.

– Interpretation sa lahat ng mga nakasulat o probisyon sa ating Constitution.

At ang mangyari sa ating Judiciary….

Taga- apply na lamang ito sa Interpretation ng mga nakasulat o probisyon sa ating Constitution.

Hindi na ito mag-interpret. Kasi nga may Interpretation na.

Kasi iba yung Interpretation ng ating Judiciary (Supreme Court) sa Interpretation ng mga Framers ng
ating 1987 Constitution.

At mas tama ang Interpretation ng ng mga Framers ng ating 1987 Constitution kaysa sa ating
Judiciary (Supreme Court).

Syempre sila yung nakaisip, sa kanila galing yung idea at yung mga nakasulat sa ating 1987

Syempre sila (Framers) yung tama.

At paara mawala na rin ang kalituhan sa kung ano talaga ang interpretation ng mga nakasulat o
probisyon sa ating Constitution

At hindi na rin maulit yung nangyayari na “NA NAG-A-ACT O UMAAKTO NA “MAS BATAS” O



Gusto ko rin baguhin ang Theory ni Montesquieu

– “Separation of state powers: executive; legislative; judicial”

Di ba sa Theory ni Montesquieu


Who implement or execute the law.


Who make, pass, and repeal the law.


Who interprets and applies the law.

Sa akin naman….


Who implement or execute the law.


Who make and pass the law. But before it became the law. It should be Interpreted.

Also it can repeal the law


Who applies the interpretation of the law.

(Yun lang… Thanks for reading. To God alone be all the Glory sa naisip ko. Dahil binigyan Niya ako
ng Wisdom at Idea. To Reform our Constitution. Especially sa pag-reform sa Separation of powers
ng ating Government)


Reply ↓

2. arias_louieFebruary 13, 2012 at 7:43 pm

Innulit ko….

Kapag natuloy yung pagbabago sa ating Constitution o Charter Change.

Before ma-ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite ang ating magiging Constitution.

Ibigay na dapat ang Interpretation nito.

– Interpretation sa lahat ng mga nakasulat o probisyon sa ating Constitution.

Dapat may Interpretation na ito.

Isulat na dapat ng magiging Framers (Constitutional Convention [ConCon] or Constitutional

Assembly [ConAss] Delegates) ang Interpretation sa lahat ng mga nakasulat o probisyon sa ating
magiging Constitution.
Hindi yung Supreme Court pa ang mag-interpret nito.

Katulad ngayon….

Yung sa ating 1987 Constitution.

Kailangan pa itong i-interpret ng ating Supreme Court.

Sa panukala ko naman.

Hindi na ito (mga nakasulat o probisyon sa ating Constitution) i-interpret ng ating Supreme Court.

Kasi nga may Intepretation na ito.

Para na hindi na maulit yung nangyari:


Ang magiging duty and function na lang ng ating Supreme Court ay sundin at i-apply ang ating
magiging Constitution at Interpretation nito.

– Interpretation na galing sa mga Framers ng ating magiging Constitution.