THE POWERS OF

GOVERNMENT
 Principle of Separation of
Powers
The system of
separation of powers L
contemplates the E E J
division of the G X U
functions of I E D
government into its S C I
three (3) branches: L U C
the legislative which A T I
is empowered to T I A
make laws; the I V L
executive which is V E
required to carry out E
the law; and the
judiciary which is
 “Consequent to the actual
delineation of power, each branch of
government is entitled to be left alone
to discharge its duties as it sees
fit. Expressed in another perspective,
the system of separated powers is
designed to restrain one branch from
inappropriate interference in the
business, or intruding upon the central
prerogatives, of another branch; it is a
blend of courtesy and caution, “a self-
executing safeguard against the
encroachment or aggrandizement of
one branch at the expense of the
other.” (See dissenting opinion of J.
Velasco in the case of MOA-AD)
INTERDEPENDENCE, NOT TOTAL
INDEPENDENCE
This is not to
say, however, that “The separation of powers
is a fundamental principle in
these branches of our system of government. It
government are obtains not through express
totally independent provision but by actual division in
our Constitution. Each department
of each other. of the government has exclusive
Rather, the system cognizance of matters within its
laid down under our jurisdiction, and is supreme within
its own sphere. But it does not
present Constitution follow from the fact that the three
prescribes interplay powers are to be kept separate
in the exercise of and distinct that the Constitution
intended them to be absolutely
those separate and unrestrained and independent of
distinct powers. each other. The Constitution has
provided for an elaborate
system of checks and balances
to secure coordination in the
workings of the various
departments of the
government.”
So, what • First, legislative power
powers are a paramount force in a
involved in republican system like
this system ours. Being, as we are,
a government of laws
and how is and not of men, all the
the interplay inherent powers of our
effected? State – police power,
taxation and eminent
domain – can only be
exercised through
legislative fiat.
But, what is legislative power?

        
Legislative power is the authority to
make laws and to alter or repeal them,
and this power is vested with the
Congress under Section 1, Article VI of
the 1987 Constitution which states:
“Section 1.  The legislative power shall be vested in
the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a
Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the
extent reserved to the people by the provision on
initiative and referendum.”
 Legislative power is…
“the authority, under the Constitution, to make laws, and
to alter and repeal them.”  The Constitution, as the will of
the people in their original, sovereign and unlimited
capacity, has vested this power in the Congress of the
Philippines.  The grant of legislative power to Congress is
broad, general and comprehensive.  The legislative body
possesses plenary power for all purposes of civil
government.  Any power, deemed to be legislative by
usage and tradition, is necessarily possessed by Congress,
unless the Constitution has lodged it elsewhere.  In fine,
except as limited by the Constitution, either expressly or
impliedly, legislative power embraces all subjects and
extends to matters of general concern or common interest.
“ (Ople vs. Torres)
 Congress’ inherent legislative
powers, broad as they may be, are
subject to certain limitations.  As
early as 1927, in Government v.
But Springer, the Court has defined, in
the abstract, the limits on legislative
power in the following wise:
legislativ Someone has said that the

e power, powers of the legislative department

of the Government,
boundaries of the ocean, are
like the

as broad
unlimited. In constitutional
governments, however, as well as
governments acting under delegated
authority, the powers of each of the
as it is, departments x x x are limited and
confined within the four walls of the
constitution or the charter, and each

Is NOT department can only exercise such

powers as are necessarily implied
from the given powers.  The
Constitution is the shore of legislative
unrestrai authority against which the waves of
legislative enactment may dash, but
over which it cannot leap.
 Thus, legislative power remains
limited in the sense that it is subject to
substantive and constitutional
limitations which circumscribe both the
exercise of the power itself and the
allowable subjects of legislation.  The
substantive constitutional limitations
are chiefly found in the Bill of Rights
and other provisions, such as Sec. 3,
Art. VI of the Constitution prescribing
the qualifications of candidates for
senators.

---SJS vs. vs. Dangerous Drugs Board, et al.. GR # 157870,

Nov. 3, 2008
 “However, to forestall the danger of
congressional encroachment “beyond
the legislative sphere,” the Constitution
imposes two basic and related
constraints on Congress. It may not vest
itself, any of its committees or its
members with either executive or
judicial power. And, when it exercises
its legislative power, it must follow the
“single, finely wrought and exhaustively
considered, procedures” specified
under the Constitution, including the
procedure for enactment of laws and
presentment.” ( )
 Second, executive power
The executive power is vested in the President. It is
generally defined as the power to enforce and administer laws. It
is the power of carrying the laws into practical operation and
enforcing their due observance. This makes the President the
single most powerful person in the state.
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.
 Aside from these, the
President has other powers
specifically granted under the
Constitution – military power,
the pardoning power, treaty
making power, among others –
and those powers granted under
the laws, including residual
powers granted under EO 292.
Third, • This Court’s power of judicial review
judicial is conferred on the judicial branch of
the government in Section 1, Article
power. VIII of our present 1987 Constitution:
the most passive but
SECTION 1. The judicial power
nonetheless as shall be vested in one Supreme
potent as legislat Court and in such lower courts as
vested in the may be established by law.
Judiciary – the Judicial power includes the
duty of the courts of justice to settle
Supreme Court and actual controversies involving rights
the lower courts which are legally demandable and
created by law. The enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a
power is referred to grave abuse of discretion
as the power of amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any
judicial review. branch or instrumentality of the
ive and executive government. (Emphasis supplied)
x x x In times of social disquietude or political
excitement, the great landmarks of the Constitution are
apt to be forgotten or marred, if not entirely obliterated.
In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the
only constitutional organ which can be called upon
to determine the proper allocation of powers
between the several departments and among the
integral or constituent units thereof.

As any human production, our Constitution is of course

lacking perfection and perfectibility, but as much as it
was within the power of our people, acting through their
delegates to so provide, that instrument which is the
expression of their sovereignty however limited, has
established a republican government intended to
operate and function as a harmonious whole, under a
system of checks and balances, and subject to specific
limitations and restrictions provided in the said
instrument. …”
The Constitution sets forth in no uncertain language the
restrictions and limitations upon governmental powers
and agencies. If these restrictions and limitations are
transcended it would be inconceivable if the
Constitution had not provided for a mechanism by which
to direct the course of government along constitutional
channels, for then the distribution of powers would be mere
verbiage, the bill of rights mere expressions of sentiment, and
the principles of good government mere political apothegms.
Certainly, the limitations and restrictions embodied in our
Constitution are real as they should be in any living
constitution. In the United States where no express
constitutional grant is found in their constitution, the
possession of this moderating power of the courts, not to
speak of its historical origin and development there, has been
set at rest by popular acquiescence for a period of more than
one and a half centuries. In our case, this moderating power is
granted, if not expressly, by clear implication from
section 2 of article VIII of our Constitution.
 JUDICIAL SUPREMACY
And 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. This
is in truth all that is involved in what is termed
"judicial supremacy" which properly is the power of
judicial review under the Constitution.
 We find therefore that the powers of these
three branches of government do not overlap; the
separation is real and exists as the powers are
actually divided and allocated among the three
branches. The system has been elaborately
designed so that the branches interact, not
compete, with each other; so that the powers
complement, not clash with, each other, so that in
the exercise of these powers, the branches check
and balance, not control, each other. Often,
however, conflicts arise as to the interpretation
and exercise of these powers.
 In cases involving separation of
powers, the rulings of the Supreme
Court have streamed along certain
logical bases –
• What the Constitution provides ;
The Supreme Court, as guardian of the
Constitution, will always uphold what is provided
under the Constitution. To make its
determination, the Supreme Court interprets the
Constitution, not as piecemeal provisions, but as a
whole. Usually also, if it is possible to decide the
controversy without putting its foot down on the
usurpation-of-power issue, it will decide it on
other considerations. Also, it will not shirk away
from its duty to settle controversies just because it
is, or any one of its members, is in the thick of the
issue. So there is no such thing as “judicial
restraint”, as long as all the requisites for
justiciability are present.
In cases involving separation of powers, the
rulings of the Supreme Court have streamed
along certain logical bases –

• The nature of the power allegedly

usurped;
The Court will decide one
way or the other based on the
nature of the power allegedly
usurped, if there is a clash
between the legislative and
executive branches. However, if it
is the judicial sphere which is being
encroached upon, it will always put
its foot down.
In cases involving separation of powers, the
rulings of the Supreme Court have streamed
along certain logical bases –
• The protection of individual rights,
if an individual person is caught in
the clash.
A paramount consideration
when deciding cases involving
separation of powers is whether or
not there is an individual right
which must be protected. For the
courts decide not merely to
allocate the boundaries among the
branches of government, but also
to provide relief to those who seek
judicial recourse meritoriously.