This view is shared by Schlesinger, who wrote in The Imperial Presidency:

For the American Presidency was a peculiarly personal institution. It remained, of

course, an agency of government subject to unvarying demands and duties no matter who
was President. But, more than most agencies of government, it changed shape, intensity
and ethos according to the man in charge. Each President's distinctive temperament and
character, his values, standards, style, his habits, expectations, idiosyncrasies, compulsions,
phobias recast the White House and pervaded the entire government. The executive branch,
said Clark Clifford, was a chameleon, taking its color from the character and personality of
the President. The thrust of the office, its impact on the constitutional order, therefore
altered from President to President. Above all, the way each President understood it as his
personal obligation to inform and involve the Congress, to earn and hold the confidence of
the electorate and to render an accounting to the nation and posterity determined whether
he strengthened or weakened the constitutional order. [At 212-213.]
We do not say that the presidency is what Mrs. Aquino says it is or what she does but,
rather, that the consideration of tradition and the development of presidential power under
the different constitutions are essential for a complete understanding of the extent of and
limitations to the President's powers under the 1987 Constitution. The 1935 Constitution
created a strong President with explicitly broader powers than the U.S. President. The 1973
Constitution attempted to modify the system of government into the parliamentary type,
with the President as a mere figurehead, but through numerous amendments, the President
became even more powerful, to the point that he was also the de facto Legislature. The
1987 Constitution, however, brought back the presidential system of government and
restored the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers by their actual
distribution among three distinct branches of government with provision for checks and
balances. LexLib
It would not be accurate, however, to state that "executive power" is the power to
enforce the laws, for the President is head of state as well as head of government and
whatever powers inherent in such positions pertain to the office unless the Constitution itself
withholds it. Furthermore, the Constitution itself provides that the execution of the laws is
only one of the powers of the President. It also grants the President other powers that do not
involve the execution of any provision of law, e.g., his power over the country's foreign
relations.
On these premises, we hold the view that although the 1987 Constitution imposes
limitations on the exercise of specific powers of the President, it maintains intact what is
traditionally considered as within the scope of "executive power." Corollarily, the powers of
the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the
Constitution. In other words, executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so
enumerated.
It has been advanced that whatever power inherent in the government that is neither
legislative nor judicial has to be executive. Thus, in the landmark decision of Springer v.
Government of the Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189 (1928), on the issue of who between the
Governor-General of the Philippines and the Legislature may vote the shares of stock held by
the Government to elect directors in the National Coal Company and the Philippine National
Bank, the U.S. Supreme Court, in upholding the power of the Governor-General to do so,
said:
. . . Here the members of the legislature who constitute a majority of the "board" and
"committee" respectively, are not charged with the performance of any legislative functions
or with the doing of anything which is in aid of performance of any