Practicecourt_usurpation.docx

Usurpation of Legislative Powers, Executive Functions and Judicial Functions

ANNOTATIONS Usurpation of Legislative Powers, Executive Powers and Judicial Powers By I-ZA FE Z. ISMAEL SHYNN N. MIÑOZA-DANCEL

I. Introduction The Philippines is a republic with a presidential form of government wherein power is equally divided among its three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. One basic corollary in a presidential system of government is the principle of separation of powers wherein legislation belongs to Congress, execution to the Executive, and settlement of legal controversies to the Judiciary. In his dissenting opinion in the 2008 case of Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP), Justice Velasco emphatically stated: “The system of separation of powers contemplates the division of the functions of government into its three (3) branches: the legislative which is empowered to make laws; the executive which is required to carry out the law; and the judiciary which is charged with interpreting the law. Consequent to actual delineation of power, each branch of government is entitled to be left alone to discharge its duties as it sees fit. Being one such branch, the judiciary, as Justice Laurel asserted in Planas v. Gil, will neither direct nor restrain executive [or legislative action]. Expressed in another perspective, the system of separated powers is designed to restrain one branch from inappropriate interference in the business, or intruding upon the central prerogatives, of another branch; it is a blend of courtesy and caution, a selfexecuting safeguard against the encroachment or aggrandizement of one branch at the expense of the other.” According to the 1987 Constitution, legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives and authorized to make laws, alter and repeal them. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine 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. Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Executive power is exercised by the government under the leadership of the president.

II. Definition and Comparison Usurpation is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as the unlawful seizure or assumption of sovereign power; the assumption of government or supreme power by force or illegally, in derogation of the constitution and of the rights of the lawful ruler. Usurpation of authority or official function is committed when a person knowingly and falsely represent himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine government or of any foreign government; or who under pretense of official position, shall perform any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine government, or any foreign government or any agency thereof without being lawfully entitled to do so. Usurpation of legislative powers, executive function and judicial functions are other forms of usurpation as crimes committed by public officers.

2.1 Usurpation of Legislative Powers Usurpation of legislative powers is committed by any public officer who shall encroach upon the powers of the legislative branch either by making general rules or regulations beyond the scope of his authority, or by attempting to repeal a law or suspending the execution thereof. Usurpation of legislative powers is committed by an executive or judicial officer who shall (a) make general rules or regulations beyond the scope of his authority, or (b) attempt to repeal a law or (c) suspend the execution thereof. As amended by RA 10951, the offender shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00).

2.2 Usurpation of Executive Functions Usurpation of executive function is committed by any Judge who shall assume any power pertaining to the executive authorities, or shall obstruct the latter in the lawful exercise of the powers. The offender of usurpation of executive functions is a judge who shall (a) assume a power pertaining to the executive authorities, or (b) obstruct the executive authorities in the lawful exercise of their powers. He shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period. In People v. Hilvano, legislative officers are not liable for usurpation of powers. Thus, a councillor who assumes a power pertaining to the mayor or obstructs him in the lawful exercise of his power is not liable under the provisions of usurpation of executive functions because only a judge can commit thereof. The

councillor is liable under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code, if he assumes the power of the mayor. To wit: Wherefore Francisco Hilvano was prosecuted — and after trial — was convicted of usurpation of public authority under Republic Act No. 10. He appealed in due time. The Solicitor-General and Appellant’s counsel agree that the penal provision applicable to the case is Republic Act No. 379 which amended Art. 177 of the Revised Penal Code to read as follows: “Usurpation of authority or official functions. — Any person who shall knowingly and falsely represent himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government or of any foreign government, or who, under pretense of official position, shall perform any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or of any foreign government, or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.” 2.3 Usurpation of Judicial Functions Usurpation of judicial functions is committed by any officer in the executive branch of the government who shall assume judicial powers or shall obstruct the execution of any order or decision rendered by any Judge within his jurisdiction. An officer of the executive branch of the government is the offender of usurpation of judicial functions. He (a) assumes judicial powers, or (b) obstructs the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon him. A Mayor is guilty under usurpation of judicial functions if he investigates a case while justice of peace is in the municipality. But a municipal president who received a complaint signed by the chief of police, and afterwards tried the case, even though the justice of the peace was discharging his office in the municipality is guilty thereof. (People v. Valdehuesa)

III. Conclusion Usurpation of legislative powers, executive functions and judicial functions punishes interference by officers of one of the three departments of government with functions of officers of other departments. Its purpose is to maintain the separation and independence of the three departments of the government and to keep the three branches within the legitimate confines of their respective jurisdictions and the officers thereof within the scope of their lawful authority. (Angara v. Electoral Commission)

Under our constitutional set up, there cannot be any serious dispute that the maintenance of the peace, insuring domestic tranquility and the suppression of violence are the domain and responsibility of the executive. Now then, if it be important to restrict the great departments of government to the exercise of their appointed powers, it follows, as a logical corollary, equally important, that one branch should be left completely independent of the others, independent not in the sense that the three shall not cooperate in the common end of carrying into effect the purposes of the constitution, but in the sense that the acts of each shall never be controlled by or subjected to the influence of either of the branches (Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP).