The Powers Of Government

THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT

Principle of Separation of Powers

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

L E G I S L A T I V E

E X E C U T I V E

J U D I C I A L

“Consequent to the actual delineation of power, each branch of government is entitled to be left alone to discharge its duties as it sees fit. 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.” (See dissenting opinion of J. Velasco in the case of MOA-AD)

INTERDEPENDENCE, NOT TOTAL INDEPENDENCE This is not to say, however, that these branches of government are totally independent of each other. Rather, the system laid down under our present Constitution prescribes interplay in the exercise of those separate and distinct powers.

“The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government.”

So, what powers are involved in this system and how is the interplay effected?

• First, legislative power a paramount force in a republican system like ours. Being, as we are, a government of laws and not of men, all the inherent powers of our State – police power, taxation and eminent domain – can only be exercised through legislative fiat.

But, what is legislative power?          Legislative power is the authority to make laws and to alter or repeal them, and this power is vested with the Congress under Section 1, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which states: “Section 1.  The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.”

Legislative power is… “the authority, under the Constitution, to make laws, and to alter and repeal them.”  The Constitution, as the will of the people in their original, sovereign and unlimited capacity, has vested this power in the Congress of the Philippines.  The grant of legislative power to Congress is broad, general and comprehensive.  The legislative body possesses plenary power for all purposes of civil government.  Any power, deemed to be legislative by usage and tradition, is necessarily possessed by Congress, unless the Constitution has lodged it elsewhere.  In fine, except as limited by the Constitution, either expressly or impliedly, legislative power embraces all subjects and extends to matters of general concern or common interest. “ (Ople vs. Torres)

But legislativ e power, as broad as it is, Is NOT unrestrai

Congress’ inherent legislative powers, broad as they may be, are subject to certain limitations.  As early as 1927, in Government v. Springer, the Court has defined, in the abstract, the limits on legislative power in the following wise: Someone has said that the powers of the legislative department of the Government, like the boundaries of the ocean, are unlimited. In constitutional governments, however, as well as governments acting under delegated authority, the powers of each of the departments x x x are limited and confined within the four walls of the constitution or the charter, and each department can only exercise such powers as are necessarily implied from the given powers.  The Constitution is the shore of legislative authority against which the waves of legislative enactment may dash, but over which it cannot leap.

Thus, legislative power remains limited in the sense that it is subject to substantive and constitutional limitations which circumscribe both the exercise of the power itself and the allowable subjects of legislation.  The substantive constitutional limitations are chiefly found in the Bill of Rights and other provisions, such as Sec. 3, Art. VI of the Constitution prescribing the qualifications of candidates for senators. ---SJS vs. vs. Dangerous Drugs Board, et al.. GR # 157870, Nov. 3, 2008

“However, to forestall the danger of congressional encroachment “beyond the legislative sphere,” the Constitution imposes two basic and related constraints on Congress. It may not vest itself, any of its committees or its members with either executive or judicial power. And, when it exercises its legislative power, it must follow the “single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedures” specified under the Constitution, including the procedure for enactment of laws and presentment.” ( )

Second, executive power The executive power is vested in the President. It is generally defined as the power to enforce and administer laws. It is the power of carrying the laws into practical operation and enforcing their due observance. This makes the President the single most powerful person in the state. As head of the Executive Department, the President is the Chief Executive. He represents the government as a whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his department. He has control over the executive department, bureaus and offices. This means that he has the authority to assume directly the functions of the executive department, bureau and office, or interfere with the discretion of its officials. Corollary to the power of control, the President also has the duty of supervising the enforcement of laws for the maintenance of general peace and public order. Thus, he is granted administrative power over bureaus and offices under his control to enable him to discharge his duties effectively.

Aside from these, the President has other powers specifically granted under the Constitution – military power, the pardoning power, treaty making power, among others – and those powers granted under the laws, including residual powers granted under EO 292.

Third, judicial power. the most passive but nonetheless as potent as legislat vested in the Judiciary – the Supreme Court and the lower courts created by law. The power is referred to as the power of judicial review. ive and executive

• This Court’s power of judicial review is conferred on the judicial branch of the government in Section 1, Article VIII of our present 1987 Constitution: SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. 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. (Emphasis supplied)

x x x In times of social disquietude or political excitement, the great landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be forgotten or marred, if not entirely obliterated. In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral or constituent units thereof. As any human production, our Constitution is of course lacking perfection and perfectibility, but as much as it was within the power of our people, acting through their delegates to so provide, that instrument which is the expression of their sovereignty however limited, has established a republican government intended to operate and function as a harmonious whole, under a system of checks and balances, and subject to specific limitations and restrictions provided in the said instrument. …”

The Constitution sets forth in no uncertain language the restrictions and limitations upon governmental powers and agencies. If these restrictions and limitations are transcended it would be inconceivable if the Constitution had not provided for a mechanism by which to direct the course of government along constitutional channels, for then the distribution of powers would be mere verbiage, the bill of rights mere expressions of sentiment, and the principles of good government mere political apothegms. Certainly, the limitations and restrictions embodied in our Constitution are real as they should be in any living constitution. In the United States where no express constitutional grant is found in their constitution, the possession of this moderating power of the courts, not to speak of its historical origin and development there, has been set at rest by popular acquiescence for a period of more than one and a half centuries. In our case, this moderating power is granted, if not expressly, by clear implication from section 2 of article VIII of our Constitution.

JUDICIAL SUPREMACY And when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them. This is in truth all that is involved in what is termed "judicial supremacy" which properly is the power of judicial review under the Constitution.

We find therefore that the powers of these three branches of government do not overlap; the separation is real and exists as the powers are actually divided and allocated among the three branches. The system has been elaborately designed so that the branches interact, not compete, with each other; so that the powers complement, not clash with, each other, so that in the exercise of these powers, the branches check and balance, not control, each other. Often, however, conflicts arise as to the interpretation and exercise of these powers.

In cases involving separation of powers, the rulings of the Supreme Court have streamed along certain logical bases –

• What the Constitution provides ; The Supreme Court, as guardian of the Constitution, will always uphold what is provided under the Constitution. To make its determination, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, not as piecemeal provisions, but as a whole. Usually also, if it is possible to decide the controversy without putting its foot down on the usurpation-of-power issue, it will decide it on other considerations. Also, it will not shirk away from its duty to settle controversies just because it is, or any one of its members, is in the thick of the issue. So there is no such thing as “judicial restraint”, as long as all the requisites for justiciability are present.

In cases involving separation of powers, the rulings of the Supreme Court have streamed along certain logical bases –

• The nature of the power allegedly usurped; The Court will decide one way or the other based on the nature of the power allegedly usurped, if there is a clash between the legislative and executive branches. However, if it is the judicial sphere which is being encroached upon, it will always put its foot down.

In cases involving separation of powers, the rulings of the Supreme Court have streamed along certain logical bases –

• The protection of individual rights, if an individual person is caught in the clash. A paramount consideration when deciding cases involving separation of powers is whether or not there is an individual right which must be protected. For the courts decide not merely to allocate the boundaries among the branches of government, but also to provide relief to those who seek judicial recourse meritoriously.