Chapter 6.

Separation of Powers Was modified under 1973 Constitution Was restored under the New Constitution with several modification o Three major departments were maintained. o Judiciary used to be weak was strengthened with conferment of additional powers o Lessening of powers of the executive o Increase in authority of the legislature o Commission on Appointment was revived o Judicial and Bar Council was created ( to ensure better selection of the judiciary) o Electoral Tribunals was restored to act as sole judge of all contests in relation to elections The Doctrine characterizes republicanism and also for the reason that the major powers are distributed by the Constitution to several departments and the Constitutional Commissions.

Purpose: 1. To prevent concentration of authority in one person (or group) which might lead to abuse in the exercise of our republican institutions 2. To secure action, to forestall overaction, to prevent despotism and to obtain efficiency ( Justice Laurel) How? Through the enactment, enforcement, and application of laws 1. Legislature enacts 2. Executive enforces 3. Judiciary - Applies This however does not mean pedantic rigor in its observance but THE KEYNOTE OF CONDUCT OF THE VARIOUS AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS IS NOT INDEPENDENCE BUT INTERDEPENDENCE.

Blending of Powers The great ordinances of the Constitutions do not establish and divide fields of black and white. Even the more specific of the are found to terminate in the penumbra shading gradually from one extreme to another (Justice Holmes) The powers are not confined exclusively to one agency or department

is the POWER OF APPOINTMENT can be exercised by each department over its own administrative personnel It is sometimes necessary that certain powers to be stretched out in more than one department ----for better collaboration and check each other for the PUBLIC GOOD. o Examples: ENACTMENT OF GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS LAW Begins with budget preparation of the President THis becomes the basis of the Bill adopted by Congress Submitted to the President for approval GRANT OF AMNESTY BY THE PRESIDENT Requires the concurrence of the majority of all the members of the Congress COMELEC Needs the consent of the president to deputize law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the government for the purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections. o

Checks and Balances The doctrine becomes workable in the corollary systems of check and balances One department can encroach upon its prerogatives or to rectify the mistakes by the other departments It is the Constitution that provides for this system This is based on the theory that THE ENDS OF THE GOVERNMENT ARE BETTER ACHIEVED THROUGH THE EXERCISE BY ITS AGENCIES OF ONLY POWERS ASSIGNED TO THEM SUBJECT TO REVERSAL IN PROPER CASES BY THOSE CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED. Examples: o The lawmaking powers of the Congress is checked by the Veto power of the President, which can be overridden by the Legislature o The President may nullify the conviction in a criminal case by pardoning the offender o The Congress may limit the jurisdiction of the SC and the inferior courts (even abolish the latter tribunals) o The judiciary has the power to declare INVALID an act done by the Congress, the President and his subordinates, or the Constitutional Commissions.

The ROLE of the JUDICIARY It sees to it that the constitutional distribution of powers among the several departments of the government is respected and observed. It allocates constitutional boundaries or invalidates the act of a coordinate body ( BY UPHOLDING THE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUION) To test whether a departments has validly exercised its given power is not through the nature of the power

o o o

The SAFEST and the FIRST CRITERION: W/N the power is question has been CONSTITUIONALLY CONFERRED UPON the department claiming its exercise. If the grant is ascertained, then the exercise of the power is sustained. The conferment of power is usually done expressly because they naturally pertain to the agencies in which they have been reposed Legislative power of congress Executive power of the president Judicial power of SC and lower courts But this is not always the case Examples The power to impeach which is EXECUTIVE and the power to try and decide impeachment cases which are essentially JUDICIAL are expressly lodged in the Congress and so is the power of investigation The Supreme Court can exercise the executive power of removal of judges over inferior courts although appointed by the president The president may authorized by the Congress to exercise tariff powers and emergency powers (legislative in nature) because the Constitution permits it. The absence of express conferment may be JUSTIFIED under the DOCTRINE OF IMPLICATION The grant of an express power carries with it all other powers that may be reasonably inferred from it. Examples o Angara Vs. Electoral Commision Certain rules of procedure promulgated by the electoral commission were challenged on the ground that they had not been expressly authorized by the 1935 Constitution. But the SC upheld them declaring that they were necessary to the proper exercise of the express power granted to the body to hear and decide election contests involving members of the legislature. o The power to punish contempt This is judicial but the legislature can do so specially now under the present Constitution which vests upon it the express power to conduct investigations in aid of legislations. This power becomes ineffective if the Congress did not possess the implied authority to punish witness to contumacy (defiance of authority)

Powers may also be justified as INHERENT OR INCIDENTAL Examples The President as head of the government may independently of constitutional or statutory authority deport undesirable aliens as an Act of State the Congress can punish any person who impugn its integrity without proof. The courts may claim the contempt power inherent in the judiciary

Justiciable and Political Questions The power of the judiciary to review official action is NOT TERMINATED when the power in question has been ascertained on the basis of the constitutional grant. BECAUSE it could be that the ACT in QUESTION had not been performed in accordance with the rules laid down by the Constitution. For example: o The appointee of the president does not possess the prescribed qualifications. o A statute granting tax exemption is enacted less that the majority of all the members of the Congress In the above examples, the courts will have jurisdiction to intervene since the questions involved are JUSTICIABLE (which means the judiciary would not be encroaching as it its role to ensure that the proper observance of norms of actions prescribed by the Constitutions) But when the matter falls under the discretion of another department specially the people themselves, the decision reached is in the category of POLITICAL QUESTIONS. Justiciable Questions o Implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right and a remedy granted and sanctioned by law for said breach of right Where the vortex of controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act. Example: The constitutional authority of the president to propose amendments to the constitution or to assume the power of a constituent assembly. ( Sanidad v. Comelec) The exercise of the constitutional duty of the President and the Senate to determine whether or not there had been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in ratifying the WTO Agreement and its three aneexes (Tanada vs. Angara)

o o

Political Questions o Questions of policy

o o o

Questions which under the Constitution are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity In regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the govt It is concern with the issues dependent upon the wisdom, NOT LEGALITY of certain measures.

Application of the Doctrine o The following are examples of political questions, hence the judicial system cannot insist its own decision and thinking Abueva Vs. Wood A writ of mandamus could not be issued to the chief executive to compel him to produce certain vouchers relative to the expenses of an official mission Severino Vs. Governor General To call for a special election though this duty was imposed to the chief executive by law in mandatory language WHY? The court held that the above cases involved powers which are discretionary in the executive and therefore not subject to judicial compulsion. Aytona Vs. Castillo The conflict between the outgoing and incoming presidents of the Philippines involved in the exercise of the appointing power (the SC refused to assume jurisdiction upon the ground of separation of powers) Political Questions Under the New Constitution o The New Constitution constricted the scope of political question o Judicial power includes the duty to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. (Art VIII. Sec 1) Suggests that the duty and power is available even against the executive and legislative departments including the President and the Congress, in the exercise of their discretionary powers The supreme Court may review in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof. The authority of SC is clear..HOWEVER, what about in the ABSENCE of similar specific authorization? To what extent may the exercise of discretion by the political departments be reviewed if warranted reversed by the courts?

In the session of CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION (July 19, 1986), it was agreed that the above provision would not do away entirely with the political question doctrine.