SEPARATION OF POWERS

SEPARATION/INTERDEPENDENCE IS BLENDING/SHARING OF POWERS

(power shared by several departments)
ARTICLE VI THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT Section 1. The legislative power shall be
vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of * DEFINITION: In the performance of a constitutional task one department acts in a manner
Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative complimentary or supplementary to the other.
and referendum. * There are instances under the Constitution when powers are not confined exclusively within
one department but are in fact assigned to or shared by several departments .
ARTICLE VII EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Section 1. The executive power shall be vested
in the President of the Philippines. Examples:
o The bills are passed by Congress and sent to the President for His approval
ARTICLE VIII JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in o The enactment of "general appropriations law", which begins with the preparation by the
one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. -President- of the budget, which becomes the basis of the bill adopted by the -Congress- and
subsequently submitted by the President, who may then approve it.
o The "grant of amnesty" by the -President- which requires the concurrence of a majority of
PURPOSE OF SEPARATION (RATIONALE): all members of the -Congress-.
P - PREVENT a concentration of authority o -COMELEC- does not alone "deputize law enforcement" agencies to ensure free, orderly,
A - AVOID an irreversible error or abuse (me: of discretion) in the exercise of “authority” (me: honest, peaceful and credible elections but does so with the consent of the -President-.
which the founding fathers/mothers of constitution thinks is the tendency of concentration)
D - DETRIMENTAL to our republican institution is such “concentration of authority” (me:
concentration of powers is not a republican way to go)
D - DESPOTISM (tyranny)
SEPARATION IS CHECK AND BALANCES
E - EFFICIENCY
* DEFINITION: The Constitution gives each department certain powers by which it may
S - SECURE action and forestall overaction (me: overaction where there is lack/excess of
definitely restrain the others from improvident (dictionary: not foreseeing and providing for the future) action,
jurisdiction) thereby maintaining the balance among them and preserving the will of the sovereign
expressed in the Constitution.
SEPARATION IS INTERDEPENDENCE NOT INDEPENDENCE
Examples:
o The President’s veto power, the power of Congress to override the veto
Yes, a department may not control/interfere/encroach the acts done of another department o ARTICLE XI: Section 3. The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to
But: Departments have to interact with one another initiate all cases of impeachment.
(me for the maintenance/effectivity the laws)

Executive. — enforce laws and may not enact or apply them;

Legislative. — enact laws and may not enforce or apply them;
Judiciary.— apply laws and may not enact or enforce them.
 DELEGATION OF POWERS TEST OF VALID DELEGATION OF POWERS
“two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative
power”
GENERAL PRINCIPLE
potesta delegata non potest delegari C - Completeness Test - Under the first test, the law must be complete in all its terms and
“no delegated powers can be further delegated.” conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate the only thing
he will have to do is enforce it.
* CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE: It is a well entrenched principle of constitutional law that
S - Sufficiency of Standards Test - Under the sufficient standard test, there must be
generally, legislative power may only be exercised by the legislative branch, and may
adequate guidelines (me: standard?) or stations in the law to map out the boundaries of the
not be delegated to other branches of government. No department, be it
legislative/executive/ judicial, except when authorized by the constitution, can abdicate delegate's authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. Standard may be either
authority or escape responsibility by delegating any of its power to another body. express or implied.

ETHICAL BASIS

* Principle that a delegated power constitutes not only a right but also a duty to be
performed by the delegate by the “instrumentality of his own judgement” and not through
the intervening mind of another.
* The sovereign people have seen fit to confide this sovereign trust of power in the
wisdom/judgement/patriotism of the chosen department. (me: The trust of the sovereign
people cannot be re-delegated to the wisdom/judgement/patriotism of another agency)

CONSTITUTIONAL EXCEPTIONS and LEGISLATIVE EXCEPTION

When legislative power is constitutionally authorized to be delegated

“1 LITRRE”
L - LEVYING OF TAXES AND CREATING SOURCES OF REVENUE TO THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS [X:5]
I - IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS TO ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES [LEGISLATIVE
GRANT]
T - TARIFF POWERS TO THE PRESIDENT [VI:28(2)]
R- RULE MAKING POWER TO CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS [XI-A:6]
R- RULE MAKING POWER TO SUPREME COURT [VIII:5(5)]
E - EMERGENCY POWERS TO THE PRESIDENT [VI:23(2)]
MAMISCAL v. ABDULLAH (LEFT) In RE Laureta and Maravilla(LEFT)

Class Topic: SEPARATION Class Topic: SEPARATION

A.M. No. SCC-13-18-J (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-36-SCC), G.R. No. L-68635 May 14, 1987
FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/may1987/gr_l_68635_1987.html
July 01, 2015
FULL TEXT: http://chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015julydecisions.php?id=509 DECISION:
DECISION: “ACCORDINGLY, the respective Motions for reconsideration of Atty. Wenceslao G. Laureta for
“WHEREFORE, the administrative matter against Macalinog S. Abdullah, Clerk of Court II, Shari'a the setting aside of the order suspending him from the practice of law, and of Eva Maravilla
Circuit Court, Marawi City, for partiality, violation of due process, dishonesty, and conduct Ilustre for the lifting of the penalty for contempt are DENIED, and this denial is FINAL. Eva
unbecoming a court employee is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice. The Maravilla Ilustre shall pay the fine of P1,000.00 imposed on her within ten (10) days from
complaint of Baguan M. Mamiscal against Macalinog S. Abdullah is hereby REFERRED to the notice, or, suffer imprisonment for ten (10) days upon failure to pay said fine within the
Office of the Mayor, Marawi City and the Civil Service Commission for appropriate action.” stipulated period.”
SUMMARY:
SUMMARY: 1. PETITIONER 1 MARAVILLA-ILUSTRE filed a complaint at TANODBAYAN against the
1. PETITIONER MAMISCAL divorced his wife Adelaidah by repudiating her (talaq). The justices about how her case was decided. She accuses the justices of impartiality since the 3
repudiation was embodied in an agreement (kapasadan) signed by Mamiscal and Adelaidah. The lawyers of her opponents must have been connected to them for being a Solicitor General, a
unsigned Certificate of Divorce (COD) was filed by wife Adelaidah on February 23, 2011 with the member of the Supreme Court and a Division Chairman, respectively.
kapasadan as supporting signed proof. 2. PETITIONER ATTY LAURETA (collateral damage) claims he has nothing to do with his
2. Case is against RESPONDENT ABDULLAH Clerk of Court Clerk of Court at Shari'a Circuit previous client’s actions. The COURT discovered otherwise and that PETITIONER ATTY LAURETA
Court, Marawi City, for issuing a Certificate of Divorce (PETIONER MAMISCAL and wife was the one who follows up for the said complaint before it was dismissed. His name is also
Adelaidah) on March 24, 2011, which she argues, based on the lapsing of iddah. In case of indicated in the said complaint as the "counsel for the complainant". He also himself followed up
divorce, the obligatory waiting period ('iddah) equivalent to three (3) monthly courses from the for the motion of reconsideration for the said dismissal. Evidence show that Atty Laureta is
date of divorce, should be observed; see Articles 29 and 57 of P.D. No. 1083 ("Code of Muslim not truthful about his statements and is infact ILUSTRE’s lawyer in her complaint in
Personal Laws of the Philippines"). the ombudsman. Thus for lying his motion for reconsideration is denied.
3. PETITIONER MAMISCAL, the husband, argues the technicalities of validity of the COD. For 3. PETITIONER MARAVILLA-ILUSTRE kept giving the court the wrong address for the final
one, a divorce under talaq could only be filed and registered by the male spouse, considering decisions of the court to be sent to. Process servers were told that she was not a resident of and
that female Muslims could do so only if the divorce was through tafwid. that she was unknown thereat. If for her contumacious elusiveness and lack of candor alone,
4. THE COURT held RESPONDENT wears two hats: first, as Clerk of Court of the Shari'a Circuit Ilustre deserves no further standing before this Court.
Court, and second, as Circuit Registrar within his territorial jurisdiction. PETITIONER MAMISCAL’s RATIO DECIDENDI:
case is against the second hat. Court does not have jurisdiction to impose the proper 1. He thus incorrigibly insists on subordinating the Judiciary to the executive
disciplinary action against civil registrars (the second hat). notwithstanding the categorical pronouncement in the Per Curiam Resolution of March 12, 1987,
5. HELD: Consequently, it behooves (duty-bound) the Court to forward the subject complaint to that Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code has no application to the members of a collegiate
the Office of the Mayor, Marawi City and “also” to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) for Court; that a charge of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act on the ground that a
appropriate action. collective decision is "unjust" cannot prosper; plus the clear and extended dissertation in the
RATIO DECIDENDI: same Per Curiam Resolution on the fundamental principle of separation of powers and of checks
5. At this juncture, it should be remembered that the authority of the Mayor to exercise and balances, pursuant to which it is this Court "entrusted exclusively with the judicial power to
administrative supervision over City/Municipal  Civil  Registrars  (C/MCRs) is not exclusive [Codal: adjudicate with finality all justifiable disputes, public and private. No other department or
Section 455(b)(l)(x)35 and Section 444(b)(l)(x)36 of the Local Government Code in relation to agency may pass upon its judgments or declare them 'unjust' upon controlling and
Section 47937 under Article IX, Title V38]. The Civil Service Commission (CSC), as the central irresistible reasons of public policy and of sound practice." [codal: Article 204 of the Revised
personnel agency of the government, has the power to appoint and discipline its officials and Penal Code]
employees and to hear and decide administrative cases instituted by or brought before it directly 1. He has, overall, deliberately sought to destroy the "authenticity, integrity, and conclusiveness
or on appeal. [Codal: Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993 of the Office of the Civil of collegiate acts," to "undermine the role of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all
Registrar-General (OCRG) to implement CA No. 3753] justifiable disputes," and to subvert public confidence in the integrity of the Courts and the
Justices concerned, and in the orderly administration of justice. In fine, we discern nothin
TOPIC: 1 Interdependence of judiciary to executive. 2 Blending/sharing of powers between Local Government TOPIC: Independence of the Judicial department in passing judgments. This is not a power
and CSC. shared or interdepended upon other departments
INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) v. CHADHA (LEFT) 5. ". . . The primary inducement to conferring the power in question upon the Executive is to
enable him to defend himself; the secondary one is to increase the chances in favor of the
Class Topic: Separation community against the passing of bad laws, through haste, inadvertence, or design."
5. Legislation should not be enacted unless it has been carefully and fully considered
462 U.S. 919 (1983) by the Nation's elected officials. In the Constitutional Convention debates on the need for a
FULL TEXT: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/462/919/
bicameral legislature, James Wilson, later to become a Justice of this Court, commented:
"Despotism comes on mankind in different shapes, sometimes in an Executive, sometimes in a
DECISION:
military, one. Is there danger of a Legislative despotism? Theory & practice both proclaim it. If
“Section 244(c)(2) is severable (thus unconstitional) from the remainder of § 244. Here,
the Legislative authority be not restrained, there can be neither liberty nor stability;
§ 244 can survive as a "fully operative" and workable administrative mechanism without the
and it can only be restrained by dividing it within itself, into distinct and independent
one-House veto.”
branches. In a single house there is no check but the inadequate one of the virtue & good
sense of those who compose it." [ONE HOUSE IS NOT ENOUGH FOR CHECK AND BALANCES.]
5. The bicameral requirement, the Presentment Clauses, the President's veto, and Congress'
SUMMARY:
power to override a veto were intended to erect enduring checks on each Branch and to protect
1. Section 244(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) authorizes House of
the people from the improvident exercise of power by mandating certain prescribed
Congress (“either”: senate or house of reps), by resolution, to invalidate the decision of the
steps. To preserve those checks, and maintain the separation of powers, the carefully
Executive Branch (via the Attorney General), to allow a particular deportable alien to
defined limits on the power of each Branch must not be eroded.
remain in the United States.
2. Appellee-respondent Chadha, an alien who had been lawfully admitted to the United States on
TOPIC: PRINCIPLE OF CHECK AND BALANCES, SAFEGUARD AGAINST LEGISLATIVE DESPOTISM
a nonimmigrant student visa, remained in the United States after his visa had expired and was
ordered by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to show cause why he should not
be deported.
3. He then applied for suspension of the deportation, and, after a hearing, an Immigration
Judge, acting pursuant to § 244(a)(1) of the Act, which authorizes the Attorney General, in his
discretion, to suspend deportation, ordered the suspension, and reported the suspension to
Congress as required by § 244(c)(1).
4. Thereafter, the House of Representatives passed a resolution pursuant to § 244(c)(2) vetoing
the suspension, and the Immigration Judge reopened the deportation proceedings. The judge
order his deportation. He appealed based on the unconstitutionality 244(c)(2) at the CA
5. The Court of Appeals held that § 244(c)(2) violates the constitutional doctrine of separation of
powers, and accordingly directed the Attorney General to cease taking any steps to deport
Chadha based upon the House Resolution.

RATIO DECIDENDI:
5. The decision to provide the President with a limited and qualified power to nullify proposed
legislation by veto was based on the profound conviction of the Framers that the powers
conferred on Congress were the powers to be most carefully circumscribed. It is beyond doubt
that lawmaking was a power to be shared by both Houses and the President. In The
Federalist No. 73 (H. Lodge ed. 1888), Hamilton focused on the President's role in making laws:
"If even no propensity had ever discovered itself in the legislative body to invade the rights of
the Executive, the rules of just reasoning and theoretic propriety would of themselves teach us
that the one ought not to be left to the mercy of the other, but ought to possess a
constitutional and effectual power of self-defence."
5. "It establishes a salutary check upon the legislative body, calculated to guard the
community against the effects of faction, precipitancy, or of any impulse unfriendly to
the public good, which may happen to influence a majority of that body."
ARNAULT v. EUSTAQUIO BALAGTAS, as Director of Prisons, (LEFT) BELGICA (public citizen, a taxpayer) v. OCHOA (LEFT)
Class Topic: Separation Class Topic: Separation
G.R. No. L-6749 July 30, 1955 G.R. No. 208566 November 19, 2013
FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1955/jul1955/gr_l-6749_1955.html FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/gr_208566_2013.html

DECISION: DECISION:
“The judgment appealed from should be, as it hereby is, reversed, and the petition for the “Finally, the Court hereby DIRECTS all prosecutorial organs of the government to, within the
issuance of the writ of habeas corpus denied. The order of the court allowing the petitioner to bounds of reasonable dispatch, investigate and accordingly prosecute all government officials
give bail is declared null and void and the petitioner is hereby ordered to be recommitted and/or private individuals for possible criminal offenses related to the irregular, improper and/or
to the custody of the respondent. With cost against the petitioner-appellee.” unlawful disbursement/utilization of all funds under the Pork Barrel System.”

SUMMARY:
1. Petitioner-appellee (ARNAULT) was an attorney in-fact (me: SPA?) or Ernest H. Burt in the negotiations for the purchase of the FACTS:
Buenavista and Tambobong Estates by the Government of the Philippines. The purchase was effected on October 21, 1949 and the price 1. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System. "Pork Barrel" is political
paid for both estates was P5,000,000.
parlance of American-English origin. Historically, its usage may be traced to the degrading ritual
2. On February 27, 1950, the Senate of the Philippines adopted Resolution No. 8, whereby it created a Special Committee to determine
"whether the said purchase was honest, valid and proper, and whether the price involved in the deal was fair and just, the parties
of rolling out a barrel stuffed with pork to a multitude of black slaves who would cast their
responsible therefor, any other facts the Committee may deem proper in the premises." famished bodies into the porcine feast to assuage their hunger with morsels coming from the
3. In the investigation conducted by the Committee in pursuance of said Resolution, (special committee asked) petitioner-appellee was generosity of their well-fed master.4 This practice was later compared to the actions of American
asked to whom a part of the purchase price, or P440,000, was delivered. Petitioner-appellee refused to answer this question, legislators in trying to direct federal budgets in favor of their districts.5 While the advent of
whereupon the Committee resolved on May 15, 1950, to order his commitment to the custody of the Sergeant at-arms of the refrigeration has made the actual pork barrel obsolete, it persists in reference to political bills
Philippines Senate and imprisoned in the new Bilibid Prison in Rizal until such time when he shall reveal such info.
that "bring home the bacon" to a legislator‘s district and constituents.
4. ARNAULT contended that the legislative department lacks authority to punish him. The Court denied his petition for release.
5. (7 months later) December, 1951 ARNAULT executed an affidavit where he disclosed the fact that the one to whom he gave the
P440,000 was Jess D. Santos. ISSUES:
6. ISSUE: W/N The legislative department has jurisdiction to order the imprisonment of the petitioner or is it instead the jurisdiction of 1. Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article and all other Congressional Pork Barrel Laws similar
the judicial department. thereto are unconstitutional considering that they violate the principles of/constitutional
6. ISSUE: W/N The judicial department has authority on reviewing the valid action of the legislative department in this case
provisions on (a) separation of powers; (b) non-delegability of legislative power; (c) checks and
balances; (d) accountability; (e) political dynasties; and (f) local autonomy.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
6. We must also and that provided the contempt is related to the exercise of the legislative power and is committed in the course of
the legislative process, the legislature's authority to deal with the defiant and contumacious witness should be supreme, and unless
RATIO DECIDENDI:
there is a manifest and absolute disregard of discretion and a mere exertion of arbitrary power coming within the reach of constitutional 1. In view of the foregoing, the Legislative branch of government, much more any of its
limitations, the exercise of the authority is not subject to judicial interference. members, should not cross over the field of implementing the national budget since, as earlier
6. The principle that Congress or any of its bodies has the power to punish recalcitrant witnesses is founded upon reason and policy. stated, the same is properly the domain of the Executive.
Said power must be considered implied or incidental to the exercise of legislative power, or necessary to effectuate said
power.
TOPIC: INDEPENDENCE OF EXECUTIVE/LEGISLATIVE
7. These the judicial department of the government has no right or power or authority to do, much in the same manner that the
legislative department may not invade the judicial realm in the ascertainment of truth and in the application and interpretation of the
law, in what is known as the judicial process, because that would be in direct conflict with the fundamental principle of separation of
powers established by the Constitution. The only instances when judicial intervention may lawfully be invoke are when there has been a
violation of a constitutional inhibition, or when there has been an arbitrary exercise of the legislative discretion.
7. All that the courts may do, in relation to the proceedings taken against petitioner prior to his incarceration, is to determine if the
constitutional guarantee of due process has been accorded him before his incarceration by legislative order, and this because of
the mandate of the Supreme Law of the land that no man shall be deprived life, liberty or property without due process of law.

TOPIC: INDEPENDENCE OF LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT TO THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. VICE VERSA.

MENDOZA v. PEOPLE (LEFT) NPC DRIVERS AND MECHANICS ASSOCIATION v. NAPOCOR(LEFT)
Class Topic: Separation: judicial cannot ampify the law congress writes Class Topic: potesta delegata non potest delegari
G.R. No. 183891 October 19, 2011 G.R. No. 156208 September 26, 2006
FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_183891_2011.html FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_156208_2006.html

DECISION: DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS petitioner Romarico J. Mendoza’s motion for “WHEREFORE, premises considered, National Power Board (NPB) Resolutions No. 2002-124 and
reconsideration. The Court AFFIRMS the petitioner’s conviction for violation of Section 22(a) and No. 2002-125 are hereby declared VOID and WITHOUT LEGAL EFFECT. The Petition for
(d), in relation to Section 28 of Republic Act No. 8282, and the petitioner is thus sentenced to an Injunction is hereby GRANTED and respondents are hereby ENJOINED from implementing said
indeterminate prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as NPB Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125.”
minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. In light of Section 4 of
Republic Act No. 9903, the petitioner’s liability for accrued penalties is considered WAIVED.
Considering the circumstances of the case, the Court transmits the case to the Chief Executive, FACTS:
through the Department of Justice, and RECOMMENDS the grant of executive clemency to the 1. Assail the validity of the termination of all employees of the National Power Corporation (NPC) on 31 January 2003 in line with the
petitioner.” restructuring of the NPC.
2. In assailing the validity of NPB Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125, petitioners maintain that said Resolutions were not
passed and issued by a majority of the members of the duly constituted Board of Directors.
3. According to petitioners, the other four members who were present at the meeting and signed the Resolutions were not the
SUMMARY: secretaries of their respective departments but were merely representatives or designated alternates of the officials who were named
1. PETITIONER MENDOZA failed to remit the Social Security Service (SSS) contributions of his under the EPIRA Law to sit as members of the NPB. Petitioners claim that the acts of these representatives are violative of the
employees. well-settled principle that "delegated power cannot be further delegated."
2. The court wants to be lenient but the legislature didn’t provide coverage for employer’s like 4. Thus, petitioners conclude that the questioned Resolutions have been illegally issued as it were not issued by a duly constituted
board since no quorum existed because only three of the nine members, as provided under Section 48 of the EPIRA Law, were present
the petitioner. Instead, the court decided to refer to the Executive department’s power of
and qualified to sit and vote.
clemency as a possible remedy for the petitioner and companies like him. 5. From the arguments put forward by herein parties, it is evident that the pivotal issue to be resolved in this Petition for Injunction is
whether or not NPB Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125 were properly enacted.

RATIO DECIDENDI: RATIO DECIDENDI:

1. The Court cannot amplify the scope of RA No. 9903 on the ground of equal protection, and 1. While it is true that the Court has determined in the case of American Tobacco Company v.
acquit the petitioner and other delinquent employers like him; it would in essence be an Director of Patents11 that a delegate may exercise his authority through persons he appoints to
amendment of RA No. 9903, an act of judicial legislation abjured by the trias politica principle.7 assist him in his functions, it must be stressed that the Court explicitly stated in the same case
2. Under Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code,12 the courts are bound to apply the law as it is that said practice is permissible only when the judgment and discretion finally exercised
and impose the proper penalty, no matter how harsh it might be. The same provision, however, are those of the officer authorized by law. According to the Court, the rule that requires an
gives the Court the discretion to recommend to the President actions it deems appropriate but administrative officer to exercise his own judgment and discretion does not preclude him from
are beyond its power when it considers the penalty imposed as excessive. utilizing, as a matter of practical administrative procedure, the aid of subordinates, so long as it
is the legally authorized official who makes the final decision through the use of his own personal
TOPIC: INTERDEPENDENCE OF EXECUTIVE/JUDICIAL/LEGISLATIVE judgment.
2. HELD: Having determined that the assailed Resolutions are void as they lack the necessary
number of votes for their adoption, We no longer deem it necessary to pass upon the other
issues raised in the instant petition

TOPIC: potesta delegata non potest delegari “no delegated powers can be further
delegated.”
GARCIA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (LEFT) U.Sv. TANG HO (LEFT)
Class Topic: Separation: Blending/sharing of powers Class Topic: Separation: executive cannot enact laws
G.R. No. 101273. July 3, 1992 G.R. No. 17122 February 27, 1922
FULL TEXT: http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1992julydecisions.php?id=406 FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1922/feb1922/gr_l-17122_1922.html

DECISION: DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus “The judgment (defendant guilty) of the lower court is reversed, and the defendant
is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioner.” discharged. So ordered.”

FACTS: FACTS:
1. Petitioner (CONGRESSMAN GARCIA) assails the validity of Executive Orders Nos. 475 and 478 1. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT TANG HO
(tariff for revenue measures). He argues that Executive Orders Nos. 475 and 478 are violative of
Section 24, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which provides as follows: "Section 24. All ISSUES:
appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local 1. That on or about the 6th day of August, 1919, in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, the
application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, said Ang Tang Ho, voluntarily, illegally and criminally sold to Pedro Trinidad, one ganta of rice at
but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments." the price of eighty centavos (P.80), which is a price greater than that fixed by Executive Order
2. PETITIONER GARCIA contends that since the Constitution vests the authority to enact No. 53 of the Governor-General of the Philippines, dated the 1st of August, 1919, under the
revenue bills in Congress, the President may not assume such power of issuing Executive authority of section 1 of Act No. 2868. Contrary to law.
Orders Nos. 475 and 478 which are in the nature of revenue-generating measures. 2. Upon this charge, he was tried, found guilty and sentenced to five months' imprisonment and
to pay a fine of P500, from which he appealed to this court, claiming that the lower court erred
FUN FACT: The Bureau of Customs which administers the Tariff and Customs Code, is one of the in finding Executive Order No. 53 of 1919, to be of any force and effect, in finding the accused
two (2) principal traditional generators or producers of governmental revenue, the other being guilty of the offense charged, and in imposing the sentence.
the Bureau of Internal Revenue. (There is a third agency, non-traditional in character, that
generates lower but still comparable levels of revenue for the government — The Philippine RATIO DECIDENDI:
Amusement and Games Corporation [PAGCOR].) 1. It is the duty of the Legislature to make the law; of the Executive to execute the law; and of
the Judiciary to construe the law. The Legislature has no authority to execute or construe the
ISSUE: law, the Executive has no authority to make or construe the law, and the Judiciary has no power
1. W/N The executive department has proper authority from congress to implement “revenue to make or execute the law.
measures” (revenue-raising). 2. By the terms of the Organic Act, subject only to constitutional limitations, the power to
legislate and enact laws is vested exclusively in the Legislative, which is elected by a direct vote
RATIO DECIDENDI: of the people of the Philippine Islands. As to the question here involved, the authority of the
1. The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject Governor-General to fix the maximum price at which palay, rice and corn may be sold in the
to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, manner power in violation of the organic law.
tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national
development program of the Government. [Section 28(2) of Article VI of the Constitution]
2. The relevant congressional statute is the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, and
Sections 104 and 401, the pertinent provisions thereof. These are the provisions which the
President explicitly invoked in promulgating Executive Orders Nos. 475 and 478
3. The imposition of increased tariff rates and a special duty on imported crude oil and imported
oil products may be seen to have some "protective" impact upon indigenous oil production.

CODALS: blendings/sharing of powers