UNDERSTANDING THE COLLAPSE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS IN

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

The Doctrine of Separation of Powers speaks of the distribution of the three powers of
government—legislative, executive and judiciary powers—among the three branches
of government, namely the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary Departments.
Legislative power is limited to the enactment of the law, the executive power to the
implementation of the law, and the judicial power to the interpretation and application
of the law. The purpose of this doctrine is to avoid monopoly of power, which may
eventually lead to despotism or dictatorship. Not in all situations, though, is the
Doctrine of Separation of Powers followed. Such is the case with administrative
agencies. With the primary function of implementing the law, administrative agencies,
therefore, pertain to the executive department. However, according to Carlo L. Cruz
(2003), aside from their executive power, these agencies also share powers with the
legislative and judiciary departments, thus, the collapse of separation of powers.

The quasi-legislative power is the power delegated by the legislature to the

administrative body to create “little laws,” as Cruz puts it, in pursuit of implementing
legislative policies. Cruz stressed, however, that “The power to issue administrative
rules and regulations is different from the power to promulgate the laws.” Such
distinction is evident in the case of Blas Ople v. Ruben Torres, et al. (1998), where it
was petitioned that A.O. No. 308, otherwise known as “Adoption of a National
Computerized Identification Reference System,” be invalidated. Questions on whether
or not the administrative order was constitutional in terms of the usurpation of
legislative powers were raised. Petitioner, Ople, claims that A.O. No. 308 is not just an
administrative policy, which complements the law as it should be, but it is a law itself;
thus, it is not within the scope of the President’s power. It was so ruled that A.O. No.
308 be null and void for being unconstitutional, as the computerized ID system would
be established for the first time, which will require drastic adjustments to state policies.

Another situation relating to the quasi-legislative power of administrative bodies is the

case of Louis Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010. In this case, the
petitioner prayed that the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC)—created by E.O. No. 1
signed by then President Benigno Aquino III—be declared unconstitutional, and so
must be enjoined from performing its functions. Biraogo argued that it violates the
doctrine of separation of powers, as it arrogates the power of the legislature to create
a completely new public office, and appropriate funds for its operation. The
respondents countered this by saying that it is an inherent power of the President to
conduct investigations, ensuring that the laws are properly implemented, and that in
any event the President is authorized by the Constitution to create such bodies.
Furthermore, they contested that funds for the establishment and operations of the
PTC are not appropriated funds, rather, they are allocations of the already-
appropriated funds by Congress. In the end, it was ruled that the petition be granted,
but not on the grounds of arrogation of power. The President, indeed, had the power
to create ad hoc committees, such as the PTC; meanwhile, the Court agreed with the
respondents when they stated that funds for PTC operation are merely allocated, and
not appropriated.

Proceeding to an administrative agency’s quasi-judicial power, it is defined by Cruz as

“…[T]he power of the administrative authorities to make determinations of facts in the
performance of their official duties and to apply the law as they construe it to the facts
so found.” Again, there is a difference in the judicial power of the courts, and the quasi-
judicial power of administrative bodies. Court proceedings focus on the question of
law, as compared to questions of fact, which is of second importance. Executive,
moreover, acts last after the judgment is made, and all legal questions are settled. On
the other hand, exercise of quasi-judicial power involves the executive acting first, and
the courts acting later (Cruz, 2003). Cruz mentioned that this quasi-judicial power is
incidental to the power of regulation of the administrative body, thus “administrative
officers can interpret and apply the law to the facts ascertained by them.”

In the last mentioned case, petitioner, Biraogo, not only questioned whether the PTC
arrogates the legislature’s power, but the judiciary’s as well. The argument was that
the PTC duplicates, if not supersedes the power of the Office of the Ombudsman and
the DOJ, as it was vested with quasi-judicial powers. However, the respondents
denied the claim, and pushed that the PTC was a fact-finding body, and not a quasi-
judicial body. The Court decided that it was, indeed a fact-finding, and not a quasi-
judicial body, which actually complements the powers of the said offices.

Although the existence of administrative agencies have created some confusions as

regards the separation of powers, it has indeed become beneficial to the delivery of
government services. Because of their flexible nature, they are able to address
emergency situations, as compared to the legislative and judicial departments.
Administrative authorities, as they are likely in the agencies whose focus is of their
specialty, are expected to be experts on the area which the agency relates to. For
instance, an economic crisis arises. We do not expect the legislature to provide
immediate solutions for the problem, considering the divisiveness and the politics
present in law-making. The Courts are not primarily concerned of issues other than
the law, be it beneficial for the economy or not. The good thing about the quasi-
legislative and quasi-judicial powers, backing up the regulatory power of the
administrative agencies, is that it does not only wait for its jurisdiction to be invoked.
These agencies can proceed in taking action to try and solve what problems arise,
more quickly and more effectively.