Separation of Powers

Chapter 6: Separation of PowersDe Alban | De TorresNotable modifications:Strengthened the Judiciary with the conferment of additional power of determining whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government

Revival of the Commission on Appointments (to check upon the appointing power in general)Notable modifications:Creation of the Judicial and Bar Council (to ensure better selection of members in the Judiciary)

Restoration of the Electoral Tribunal (to act as sole judge of all contests relating to election, returns, and qualifications of the members in the respective houses)Doctrine of Separation of PowersStates that the three branches must discharge their respective functions within the limits of the authority conferred by the Constitution.

Neither the Congress, the President, nor the Judiciary may encroach on fields allocated to the other branches of government.

Each of the three branches has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling within its own constitutionally allocated sphere.Purposes of the Doctrine:To prevent a concentration of authority in one person or group of persons that might lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of our republican institutions.To secure actionTo forestall over-actionTo prevent despotismTo obtain efficiency

The keynote of the conduct: interdependenceBlending of Powers- When powers are not confined exclusively within one department but are in fact assigned to or shared by several departments.

ILLUSTRATIONS:1. Enactment of the General Appropriations Law- Budget is prepared by the President.- The prepared budget becomes the basis of the bill adopted by the Congress, which will be submitted for approval by the President.

2. The grant of amnesty by the President requiring the concurrence by the majority of all the members of the Congress.

3. COMELEC does not deputize law-enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the government for the purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections without the consent of the President.

Systems of Checks and BalancesOne department Is allowed to resist encroachments upon its prerogatives or to rectify mistakes or excesses committed by the other departments.

The ends of the government are better achieved through the exercise by its agencies of the powers only assigned to them, subject to the reversal in proper cases by those constitutionally authorized.

ILLUSTRATIONS:The lawmaking power of the Congress is checked by the President through his veto power, which in turn may by overridden by the legislature.

The Congress may refuse to give its concurrence to an amnesty proclaimed by the President.

The Senate may refuse to give its concurrence to a treaty the President has concluded.

ILLUSTRATIONS:The Congress may limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and that of inferior courts and even abolish the latter tribunals.

The Judiciary has the power to declare invalid an act done by the Congress, the President and his subordinates or the Constitutional Commissions.Role of the JudiciarySees to it that the constitutional distribution of powers among the several departments of the government is respected and observed.

When the Supreme Court mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries or invalidate the acts of a coordinate body, what it is upholding is not its own supremacy but the supremacy of the Constitution.

To determine whether a particular department has validly exercised a given power, the conferment of power should first be ascertained.

POWERS CONFERRED TO THE JUDICIARYBy the provisions expressly given in the Constitution.Vesture of the legislative power in the Congress, executive power in the President and Judicial power in the Supreme Court.By the Doctrine of ImplicationThe grant of an express power carries with it all the powers that may be reasonably inferred from it.For example, the power to punish contempt, which although essentially judicial, can unquestionably be exercised by the legislature considering the express power to conduct investigations in aid of legislation vested to the Congress.CASE ILLUSTRATION:In Angara v. Electoral Commission, 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. SC upheld the rules on procedure, 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.

Inherently or incidentally granted for by the ConstitutionPresident, as head of the government, may independently deport undesirable aliens as an Act of State.Congress can punish any person who impugns its integrity without proof.Courts may contempt power inherent in the judiciary.JUSTICIABLE AND POLITICAL QUESTIONSJusticiable Question: implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by law.

Political Question: considerations affecting the wisdom, efficacy or practicability of a law, should come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress.JUSTICIABLE AND POLITICAL QUESTIONSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSGonzales v. Office of the PresidentHeld: It is not within the power of the Judiciary to determine what constitutes betrayal of public trust of those who are impeachable considering that power to impeach is lodged with the legislative. However, if betrayal of public trust will be applied to a non-impeachable officer like a Deputy Ombudsman or a Special Prosecutor, it is considered a justiciable question.The determination of what constitutes disorderly behavior is a political question and therefore, not cognizable by the courts. Nonetheless, if supported by less than the required vote of 2/3, the disciplinary action, dealing with a procedural rule in the interpretation of which calls only for a mathematical computation, is considered a justiciable question.JUSTICIABLE AND POLITICAL QUESTIONSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSTanada v. Cuenco

Facts: The 1935 Constitution provided that an Electoral Tribunal should be composed of 9 members, 3 members of Justices of the Supreme Court and 6 members to be chosen by each house, three upon the nomination of the party with the largest number of votes and three upon the party with the second largest vote. The Senate included only one minority member, who nominated only himself, and the majority party named the two other members from its ranks completing the nine-man composition. Thereby made the lone oppositionist question the procedure while the respondents contented that it was a political question.JUSTICIABLE AND POLITICAL QUESTIONSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSTanada v. Cuenco

Held: The court assumed its jurisdiction.

Political question, a question of policy, which are under the Constitution are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. JUSTICIABLE AND POLITICAL QUESTIONSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSSanidad v. COMELEC

Held: Political questions are associated with the wisdom, not the legality of the particular act. Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act, that matter is definitely justiciable. Whether the constitutional provision has been followed or not is the proper subject of inquiry by the Supreme court, which includes the competence to determine whether the constitutional norms for amendments have been observed or not.

JUSTICIABLE AND POLITICAL QUESTIONSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSTanada v. Angara

Held: The Court will not review the wisdom of the President and the Senate in enlisting the country into the World Trade Organization, or pass upon the merits of trade liberalization as a policy espoused by the said international body. Rather, the Supreme Court will only exercise its constitutional duty to determine whether or not there had been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate ratifying the WTO Agreement and its three annexes.

JUSTICIABLE AND POLITICAL QUESTIONSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSAbueva v. Wood & Severino v. Governor-GeneralHeld: A writ of mandamus could not be issued to compel a President to produce certain vouchers relative to the expenses of an official mission and to call a special election because the powers involved were discretionary within the Executive department and were not subject to Judicial compulsion.In Re Patterson:Held: The Governor-General could act without the interference on the part of the judicial power according to the doctrine of separation of powers. Expulsion of foreigners is a political measure and that the Executive may expel without appeal any person whose presence tends to disturb the public peace. JUSTICIABLE AND POLITICAL QUESTIONSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSAytona v. Castillo

Facts: There was a conflict between the outgoing and incoming Presidents of the Philippines involving the exercise of the Appointing power.

Held: The Supreme Court refused to assume jurisdiction on the ground of Separation of Powers, that the courts are not to encroach the political prerogatives of the President.

Application of the DoctrineDOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSAbueva v. Wood It is stated that a writ of mandamus cannot be imposed upon the chief executive to compel him to produce certain vouchers relative to the expenses of an official mission. Severino v. Governor-GeneralHe (Chief Executive) also cannot be compelled through a writ of mandamus to call a special election though this duty was imposed to him by the law in mandatory language. In the above stated case, the Court held that the powers involved were executive in nature thus not subject to judicial compulsion. DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSIn Re Dick

The Supreme Court also interpreted as discretionary, the power of the Governor-General to ascertain the necessity for the expulsion of an alien for the protection of the national interest.The expulsion of an alien (deportation) is a political question.

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSIn Re PattersonThe court announced that the Governor-General could act without interference on the part of the judicial power.The expulsion of foreigners is a political measure and that the executive power may expel without appeal any person whose presence tend to disturb the public peace.DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSIn Re PattersonBut the privilege of foreigners to enter the territory of a State for the purpose of travelling through or remaining therein being recognized on principle, we must also recognize the right of the State under exceptional circumstances to limit the aforementioned privilege upon the ground of public policy, and in all case to preserve the obligations of the foreigner to subject himself to the provisions of the local law concerning his entry into and his presence in the territory of each State.DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSForbes v. Chuoco TiacoThe Court dismissed an action for damages against the Governor-General for deporting certain undesirable aliens. The Court stated that no one can be held legally responsible in damages for doing in a legal matter what he had authority, under the law, to do. If the Governor-General had the authority to deport the defendants and the circumstances justifying the deportation and method carrying it out are left to him then he cannot be held liable in damages for the exercise of his power. DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSForbes v. Chuoco TiacoMoreover, if the Courts are without authority to interfere in any manner, for the purpose of controlling or interfering with the exercise of the political powers vested in the chief executive authority of the government, then it must follow that the courts cannot intervene for the purpose of declaring that the Governor General is liable for damages in the exercise of this authority.DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSAytona v. Castillo (Midnight Appointees Cases)The conflict between the outgoing and the incoming Presidents of the Philippines involved the exercise of the appointing power, the Supreme Court refused to assume jurisdiction due to separation of powers.Javellana v. Executive Secretary (Ratification Cases)Several justices of the Supreme Court expressed the view that they were concluded by the ascertainment made by the President of the Philippines, in the exercise of his political prerogatives, that the people had acquiesced in or accepted the1973 Constitution. DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSDe la Llana vs. COMELEC

The Supreme Court refused to restrain the holding of a referendum, ruling that the calling thereof lay in the exclusive discretion of President Marcos.

NOTE: The declaration of Martial Law is a political question.DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSCustodio vs. Senate President

A taxpayer challenged the validity of a provision in the general appropriations law that compensated the members of the Congress for services supposedly rendered by them during the Japanese occupation. It was held that the question submitted was political, affecting as it did the wisdom or propriety of the law. Hence, the only remedy that may be sought by the petitioner was to resort not to the courts but to the bar of public opinion.

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSAlejandrino v. Quezon (Senate) & Osmena v. Pendatun (House of Representatives)

When the House of Representatives and the Senate both suspended a member for disorderly behaviour (improper conduct) the Supreme Court refused to interfere even if in the former case it declared that the suspension was illegal because the seat remains filled but the occupant is silenced.DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSVera v. AvelinoThree (3) Senators-elect who had been prevented from taking their oaths of office by resolution of the Senate went to the SC and alleged that only the Electoral Tribunal had jurisdiction over contests relating to their election, returns, and qualifications. The SC refused to intervene, holding that the case was not a contest, and affirmed the inherent right of the legislature to determine who shall be admitted to its membership.

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSArnault v. BalagtasThe petitioner raised the question regarding the legality of his detention by the order of the Senate for his refusal to answer the questions put to him by one of its investigating committees.

The SC refused to order his release and deferred to the discretionary authority of the legislative body to punish contumacious (stubbornly disobedient) witnesses for contempt.DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSHacienda Luisita Inc. v. Luisita Industrial Park Corp.

It has further been ruled that the wisdom of Congress in allowing an SDP (Stock Distribution Plan) through a corporation as an alternative mode of implementing agrarian reform is not for judicial determination.DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSPhilippine Coconut Producers Federation v. RepublicThe Supreme Court explained that the decision on whether to proceed with the conversion or defer action thereon until final adjudication of the issue of ownership over the sequestered shares properly pertains to the executive branch, represented by the PCGG.DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSPhilippine Coconut Producers Federation v. RepublicThe Court added that corollary to the principle of separation of powers is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction that the courts will defer to the decisions of the administrative offices and agencies by reason of their expertise and experience in the matters assigned to them.

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSPhilippine Bar Association v. COMELECThe calling of the snap presidential elections on February 7, 1986, by the Batasang Pambansa was held by the SC to be a political question resoluble only by the sovereign electorate.

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSDe Castro v. Committee on Justice

The SC was asked to reverse a decision of the respondent dismissing impeachment charges against President Marcos after deliberating thereon for only six hours and to compel the said committee to give due course to such charges. DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSDe Castro v. Committee on Justice

The petition for certiorari and mandamus was dismissed, on the ground inter alia that the issues raised were political in nature and could be resolved only by the legislators themselves in the exercise of their discretion. DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSDe Castro v. Committee on JusticeThe Court ruled that the dismissal of the charges was within the ambit of the powers vested exclusively in the Batasan by express provisions of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution and it is not within the competence of this Court to inquire whether in the exercise of said powers the Batasan acted wisely.DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSRomulo v. YniquezThe petitioners asked for the recall of the impeachment resolution so it could be considered directly by the Batasang Pambansa, the Court, citing its ruling in the antecedent case, dismissed the petition on the ground of powers.

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSNOTE: The Constitution now requires the proper committee of the House of Representatives to submit its report on an impeachment complaint, together with its corresponding resolution, to the House within sixty (60) days from its referral to the same, and said resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten (10) session days from its receipt thereof. A vote of at least one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment, or override its contrary resolution. DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSAvelino v. Cuenco (Presidency of the Senate)The incumbent Senate President was deposed and replaced. He questioned his successors title, arguing that the latter had been elected without a quorum. The petition was at first dismissed on the ground that the selection of the presiding officer of the Senate was an internal matter that could not be reviewed by the judiciary. On the motion for reconsideration the SC decided that it could assume jurisdiction in the light of subsequent events which justified its intervention and because there was a quorum.DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSBarcelon v. Baker & Montenegro v. CastanedaIt was held that the power to determine the existence of the grounds specified in the Constitution for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was discretionary and therefore not justiciable, on the justification of the superior competence of the commander-in-chief to assess the peace and order condition of the country.DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSBut, this doctrine was reversed in Lansang v. Garcia where the SC asserted the right to inquire into the factual basis of the suspension and to annul the same if it appeared from its own investigations that the grounds invoked by the President were not actually existing.In a complete about-face, however, this decision was itself later abandoned in Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile where the original rule announced in the Barcelon and Montenegro Cases was reinstated to make the questioned power once again discretionary in the President. Noblejas v. TeehankeeThe administrative investigation of an executive official should be undertaken by the President of the Philippines and not the SC even if it is provided by law that such official had the rank and privileges of a judge of the CFI. The SC cant be compelled by law to act as a mere board of arbitrators, an essentially executive body, particularly because whatever decisions it might make in the discharge of its administrative functions would ultimately have to be reviewed by the same members in the exercise of their judicial powers.

Section 12 of Article VIII of the Constitution provides that the Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSNoblejas v. Teehankee

Section 12 of Article VIII of the Constitution provides that the Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSDOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERSCASE ILLUSTRATIONSEndencia v. David The powers that belong to the judiciary may not be assumed by other departments.The legislative provided into law that the imposition of income taxes upon the salaries of judges should not be interpreted as an unconstitutional diminution of their salary. The Supreme Court ruled that the interpretation of the provision in question was the exclusive function of the judiciary.It is noteworthy that under the new Constitution the scope of the political question was constricted because of the new definition of judicial power, which now includes the duty to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. The language suggests clearly that the above mentioned duty (power) is available even against the executive and the legislative departments, including the President and the Congress, in the exercise of their discretionary powers.POLITICAL QUESTION UNDER THE NEW CONSTITUTIONEstrada v. DesiertoThe 1987 Constitution narrowed the reach of political question doctrine when it expanded the power of judicial review of this court. The judiciary has focused on the thou shall nots of the Constitution directed against the exercise of its jurisdiction. Courts are given a greater prerogative to determine what it can to do to prevent grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

POLITICAL QUESTION UNDER THE NEW CONSTITUTIONCASE ILLUSTRATIONSNote: Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the courts have no right to directly decide matters over which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Executive Branch of the government, or to substitute their own judgments for that of the Executive Department. POLITICAL QUESTION UNDER THE NEW CONSTITUTIONCASE ILLUSTRATIONSGalicto v. AquinoThe court declared that the issuance of an Executive Order is not a judicial, quasi-judicial or mandatory act. Accordingly, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may not be availed of by any party to question its constitutionality. The proper recourse, according to the Court, would be a petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, which should be filed in the Regional Trial Court.POLITICAL QUESTION UNDER THE NEW CONSTITUTIONCASE ILLUSTRATIONSAtong Paglaum, Inc. v. COMELECThe Court is sworn to uphold the 1987 Constitution, apply it and desist from engaging in socio-economic or political experimentations contrary to what the Constitution has ordained. The present petition should be remanded to the COMELEC not because the COMELEC has committed a grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying the petitioners but because the petitioners may qualify to participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections under the new parameters prescribed by this Court.

POLITICAL QUESTION UNDER THE NEW CONSTITUTIONCASE ILLUSTRATIONSIn Re: COA Opinion on the Computation of the Appraised Value of the Properties Purchased by the Retired Chief/Associate Justices of the Supreme CourtThe Court defended or confirmed its authority to determine or fix the appraised value of the properties purchased by the retired members of said Court, as against the findings of the Commission on Audit on the same, on the strength of the principle of separationPOLITICAL QUESTION UNDER THE NEW CONSTITUTIONCASE ILLUSTRATIONSPOLITICAL QUESTION UNDER THE NEW CONSTITUTIONCASE ILLUSTRATIONSIn Re: COA Opinion on the Computation of the Appraised Value of the Properties Purchased by the Retired Chief/Associate Justices of the Supreme Courtof powers, stressing its judicial independence and fiscal autonomy, and citing its unique circumstances, declaring that the judicial branch as a whole should work in the discharge of its constitutional functions free of restraints and influence from the other branches, save only for those imposed by the Constitution itself.