Chapter 6:

Separation of
De
Alban | De Torres
Powers

Notable 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
Powers

States 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:
1. To prevent a concentration of authority

2.
3.
4.
5.

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 action
To forestall over-action
To prevent despotism
To obtain efficiency

The keynote of the conduct: interdependence

Blending 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 lawenforcement
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

Balances

One 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 Judiciary

Sees 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

JUDICIARY
By 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 Implication

The 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
President, as head of the

Inherently or
legislature.
incidentally
government, may
granted for by
independently deport
the
undesirable aliens as an Act of
Constitution
State.
Congress can punish any
person who impugns its
integrity without proof.

JUSTICIABLE AND POLITICAL

QUESTIONS
Justiciable 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

QUESTIONS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
Gonzales v. Office of the President
Held: 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
The
determination
of what
constitutes disorderly
considered
a justiciable
question.
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 AND POLITICAL

QUESTIONS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
Tanada 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 nineman composition. Thereby made the lone
oppositionist question the procedure while the

JUSTICIABLE AND POLITICAL

QUESTIONS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
Tanada 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

QUESTIONS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
Sanidad 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

QUESTIONS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
Tanada 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

QUESTIONS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
Abueva v. Wood & Severino v. Governor-General
Held: 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

QUESTIONS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
Aytona 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 Doctrine

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
Abueva 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-General

He (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
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
In Re Dick
The Supreme Court also interpreted as
discretionary, the power of the GovernorGeneral 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
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
In Re Patterson
The court announced that the GovernorGeneral 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
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
In Re Patterson
But 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

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
Forbes v. Chuoco Tiaco
The 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

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
Forbes v. Chuoco Tiaco
Moreover, 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
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
Aytona 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

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
De 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
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
Custodio 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

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
Alejandrino v. Quezon (Senate) &
Osmena
v.
Pendatun
(House
Representatives)

of

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
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
Vera v. Avelino

Three (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

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
Arnault v. Balagtas
The 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

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
Hacienda 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
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
Philippine Coconut Producers
Federation v. Republic
The 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
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
Philippine Coconut Producers
Federation v. Republic
The 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
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS

Philippine Bar Association v.

COMELEC

The 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
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
De 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
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
De 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
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
De Castro v. Committee on Justice
The 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
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS

Romulo v. Yniquez
The 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
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS
NOTE: 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

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS

OF

Avelino 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

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS

OF

Barcelon v. Baker & Montenegro v.

Castaneda
It 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
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS

OF

But, 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
In
a complete
actually
existing. 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.

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS

OF

Noblejas v. Teehankee
The 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

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS

OF

Noblejas 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
POWERS
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS

OF

Endencia 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.

POLITICAL
QUESTION
CONSTITUTION

UNDER

THE

NEW

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
on the
part ofclearly
any branch
or
jurisdiction
The language
suggests
that the
instrumentality
of the
government.
above mentioned
duty
(power) is available
even against the executive and the
legislative departments, including the
President and the Congress, in the exercise

POLITICAL
QUESTION
CONSTITUTION
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS

UNDER

THE

NEW

Estrada v. Desierto
The 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

POLITICAL
QUESTION
CONSTITUTION
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS

UNDER

THE

NEW

Note: 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
CONSTITUTION
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS

UNDER

THE

NEW

Galicto v. Aquino
The 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
CONSTITUTION
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS

UNDER

THE

NEW

Atong Paglaum, Inc. v. COMELEC

The 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

POLITICAL
QUESTION
CONSTITUTION
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS

UNDER

THE

NEW

In Re: COA Opinion on the Computation

of the Appraised Value of the Properties
Purchased by the Retired Chief/Associate
Justices of the Supreme Court

The 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,

POLITICAL
QUESTION
CONSTITUTION
CASE ILLUSTRATIONS

UNDER

THE

NEW

In Re: COA Opinion on the Computation

of the Appraised Value of the Properties
Purchased by the Retired Chief/Associate
Justices of the Supreme Court

of 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