SEPARATION OF POWERS
Ordains that each of the 3 branches of government has exclusive
cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling within its constitutionally
allocated sphere; each branch cannot invade the domain of others.
Powers of the government are separated to avoid concentration of
powers in any one branch [Gatmaytan].
The government established by the Constitution follows the theory of
separation of powers. Separation of powers is a fundamental principle
in our system of government and is founded on the belief that, by
establishing equilibrium among the three (3) power holders, harmony
will result and power will not be concentrated and tyranny will be
avoided [Bernas]. Any system that is violative of the principle of
separation of powers is unconstitutional and void [See Belgica v. Ochoa
on the unconstitutionality of the PDAF].
The Philippine government is divided into three (3) branches of
government, namely:
1. Legislative
2. Executive; and
3. Judiciary
The principle of separation of powers ordains that each of the three
government branches has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in
concerns falling within its own constitutionally allocated sphere. It
intends to secure action, to
forestall over-action, to prevent despotism, and to promote efficiency
While the separation of powers is not expressly provided for in the
Constitution, it obtains from actual division in the Constitution (found in
Sec. 1 of Arts. VI, VII, and VIII). Each department has exclusive
cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its
own sphere (see Angara v. Electoral Commission).
Political Question Doctrine
A question of which a resolution has been vested by the Constitution
exclusively in the people, or in which full discretionary authority has
been delegated to a co-equal branch of the government (separation of
powers) cannot be decided upon by the Courts.
This is as opposed to a justiciable question which deals with matters re:
the law and its interpretation, not left to the wisdom of the people.
Application
A. Belgica v. Ochoa
The Pork Barrel System violates the separation of powers because it is
a form of post- enactment authority in the implementation or
enforcement of the budget.
1. The system permits legislative encroachment upon the executive
prerogative of implementing the law, by giving individual
legislators: (a) The power to determine projects after the General
Appropriations Act (GAA) is passed; and (b) through
congressional committees, authority in the areas of fund release
and realignment, the system encroaches on the Executive’s power
to implement the law.
2. Furthermore, identification of a project by a legislator being a
mandatory requirement before his PDAF can be tapped as a
source of funds, his act becomes indispensable in the entire
budget execution process.
B. Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973 (2016)
In the exercise of his powers under the Constitution and the Executive
Order No. 292
(Administrative Code of 1987), to allow the internment of Marcos at the
LNMB, which is a land of the public domain devoted for national military
cemetery and military shrine purposes, President Duterte decided a
question of policy based on his wisdom that it shall promote national
healing and forgiveness. There being no taint of grave abuse of
discretion, as discussed below, President Duterte’s decision on that
political question is outside the ambit of judicial review.
C. Forietrans Manufacturing Corporation v. Davidoff Et Cia. SA, G.R.
No. 197482 (2017) The task of determining probable cause is lodged
with the public prosecutor and ultimately, the Secretary of Justice.
Under the doctrine of separation of powers, courts have no right to
directly decide matters over which full discretionary authority has been
delegated to the Executive Branch of the Government.
D. OCA v. Reyes, A.M. No. P-08- 2535 (2010)
The legislative power imposing policies through laws is subject to the
substantive and constitutional limitations. It cannot limit the Court’s
power to impose disciplinary actions against erring justices, judges and
court personnel. Neither should such policy be used to restrict the
Court’s power to preserve and maintain the Judiciary’s honor, dignity
and integrity and public confidence that can only be achieved by
imposing strict and rigid standards of decency and propriety governing
the conduct of justices, judges and court employees
