SEPARATION

OF
POWERS PRINCIPLE
The powers of the government, by virtue of this principle are divided into
three(3) distinct classes.

They are distributed respectively among the legislative, executive and

judicial branches or departments of the government.

Under this principle, the officers entrusted with each of these powers are
not permitted to encroach upon the powers confided to the others.

If one department goes beyond the limits set by the constitution, its acts
are null and void.
Pangasinan, Inc. vs Public Service Commission
(Gr. No. 47065, June 26, 1940)

FACTS:

PANTRANCO, a holder of an existing Certificate of Public

Convenience is applying to operate additional buses with PSC,has been
engaged in transporting passengers in certain provinces by means of public
transportation utility.

Pantranco applied for authorization to operate 10 additional trucks.

The PSC granted the application but added several conditions for
PANTRANCO’s compliance. One is that the service can be acquired by
government upon payment of the cost price less depreciation, and that the
certificate shall be valid only for a definite period of time.
ISSUE:

Whether PSC can impose said conditions. If so, wouldn’t this power
constitutes violation of separation of powers?

RULING:

The Supreme Court held that there was no violation of separation of

powers principle because it is valid delegation of powers.

The theory of the separation of powers is designed by its originators

to secure action at the same time forestall overaction which necessarily
results from undue concentration of powers and thereby obtain efficiency
and prevent deposition.
 But due to the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of
subjects of governmental regulation and the increased difficulty of
administering laws, there is a constantly growing tendency toward the
delegation of greater powers by the legislature, giving rise to the adoption,
within certain limits, of the principle of “subordinate legislation.”

All that has been delegated to the Commission is the administrative

function, involving the use of discretion to carry out the will of the National
Assembly having in view, in addition, the promotion of public interests in a
proper and suitable manner.
Belgica vs. Ochoa (710 SCRA 1, November 19, 2013)

FACTS:

Several petitions were lodged before the Court similarly seeking

that the "Pork Barrel System" be declared unconstitutional

UDK-14951 – A Petition filed seeking that the PDAF and all other
congressional pork barrel be declared unconstitutional, and a cease and
desist order be issued restraining President Benigno Simeon S. Aquino III
(President Aquino) and Secretary Abad from releasing such funds to
Members of Congress
ISSUE:

Whether the Congressional Pork Barrel Laws similar thereto are

unconstitutional considering that they violate the principles of/constitutional
provisions on separation of powers?

RULING:

Yes, the Congressional Pork Barrel is unconstitutional. The post-

enactment measures which govern the areas of project identification, fund
release and fund realignment are not related to functions of congressional
oversight and, hence, allow legislators to intervene and/or assume duties
that properly belong to the sphere of budget execution.
 This violates the principle of separation of powers. Congress‘ role must
be confined to mere oversight that must be confined to: (1) scrutiny and (2)
investigation and monitoring of the implementation of laws. Any action or step
beyond that will undermine the separation of powers guaranteed by the
constitution.

Thus, the court declares the 2013 PDAF article as well as all other
provisions of law which similarly allow legislators to wield any form of post-
enactment authority in the implementation or enforcement of the budget,
unrelated to congressional oversight, as violative of the separation of powers
principle and thus unconstitutional.
The three co-equal departments are established by the constitution
in as balanced positions as possible.

To maintain this balance or to restore it if upset, each department is

given certain powers with which to check the others.
EXAMPLES OF CHECKS AND BALANCES:

PRESIDENT
- His approval is required in the law making process of the Congress. He may
exercise VETO power.
- He may nullify a conviction in a criminal case by pardoning the offender

Congress
- May override the VETO power of the president by a vote of 2/3 of all the
members of each house
- May limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and of that inferior courts and
even abolish the latter tribunals subject to certain transactions

Judiciary
-Has the power to declare invalid an act done by the Congress, the President
and his subordinates.
San Miguel Corporation vs. Secretary of Labor (GR. No. L- 39195)

Facts:

Yanglay, an employee of San Miguel, after leaving the plant in the

afternoon, was apprehended by Patrolman outside the company
compound. Yanglay was carrying a bagful of company- drugs. He
admitted that he was caught in possession of the said drugs which he had
bought from his coworkers.

After investigation, he was dismissed. Yanglay filed a complaint

with the NLRC alleging that there was no evidence to justify his dismissal,
that the truth was that he owned the medicines in question and that he
was dismissed because of his union activities.
As such, the mediator recommended Yanglay’s reinstatement with
backwages, and the NLRC adopted the same.

The San Miguel Corporation moved for the reconsideration of the decision
on the ground that it was premature because section 14 of the NLRC’s
Rules and Regulations requires that the mediator’s fact finding report be
passed upon by an arbitrator. The motion was treated as an appeal by the
Secretary of Labor. However MR was denied thereafter, the company,
instituted this certiorari proceeding.

Yanglay contends that this Court has no jurisdiction to review the decisions
of the NLRC and the Secretary of Labor “under the principle of separation
of powers” and that judicial review is not provided for in Presidential Decree
No. 21.
Issue:

Whether the Court has a jurisdiction over the decision of the NLRC and
the Secretary of labor under the “Principle of Separation of powers”?

Ruling:

The Court has jurisdiction over the case.

It is generally understood that as to administrative agencies

exercising quasi-judicial or legislative power there is an underlying power
in the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law
and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute. The
purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its
jurisdiction and protect substantial rights of parties affected by its
decisions, It is part of the system of checks and balances which restricts
the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudications.
Judicial review is proper in case of lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of
discretion, error of law, fraud or collusion.

The courts may declare an action or resolution of an administrative authority

to be illegal (1) because it violates or fails to comply with some mandatory
provision of the law or (2) because it is corrupt, arbitrary or capricious.