DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS

Seperation 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

Legislative- in charge of making laws

Executive- Enactment and enforcement

Judicial- Interpretation of law

In the case of Belgica vs Ochoa

FACTS: In 2013, This is the case of Pork Barrel system, political scandal wherein there are funds allocated
to the members of the Congress, they’ve given the power to spend those funds if they see fit without
going to the normal process of through the Executive department. {it includes hard and soft projects na
hindi naman nageexist or the so called ghost projects}

So here, Janet Lim-Napoles, used the PDAF of 28 lawmakers to channel the money to ghost projects—a
staggering amount of some P10 billion over a period of 10 years.  Billions of pesos were transferred to
different bogus NGOs.

Then, they filed a petition arguing that Pork Barrel is unconstitutional since it violated the doctrine of
separation of powers

Issue: ·Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article and all other Congressional Pork Barrel laws are
unconstitutional for violating the constitutional provisions on separation of powers

Ruling: The separation of powers between the Executive and the Legislative Departments has
been violated. The post-enactment measures including project identification, fund release, and
fund realignment are not related to functions of congressional oversight and, hence, allow
legislators to intervene and assume duties that properly belong to the sphere of budget
execution, which belongs to the executive department. Legislators have been, in one form or
another, authorized to participate in the various operational aspects of budgeting, including the
evaluation of work and financial plans for individual activities and the regulation and release of
funds in violation of the separation of powers principle.
 
Any provision of law that empowers Congress or any of its members to play any role in
the implementation or enforcement of the law violates the principle of separation of
powers and is thus unconstitutional.
In the case of Neri vs Senate

FACTS: So the petitioner here, Romulo Neri, the director of NEDA, were called by Senate Committee to
testify with regard to the National Broadband Project awarded by DOTC. He said that he was bribed by
COMELEC Chairman Abalos to approve the project and told the President about it. So he was asked a
follow up questions:

a. Did she followed up the NBN Project

b. Did she directed him to prioritize it
c. she directed him to approve it

He refused saying executive privilege. So kinulit sya ng senate committee na magattend attend ng
hearing. Then, they issued a contempt order to Neri. So he filed to the Court, he contended they cannot
issue a contempt order and arrest him because he cannot provide the Committee any further details of
these conversations since it was covered to executive privilege. It was granted.

The Senate Committee then argued that those orders that were issued pursuant to the exercise of their
legislative power, and not merely their oversight functions. The basis of their contention is Rules of
Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation

Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution states that:

The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in
aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.

ISSUE: Whether or not they can issue contempt order pursuant to their Rules of Procedure Governing
Inquiries in Aid of Legislation (the “Rules”) thus the Court must refrain from reviewing the internal
processes of Congress

HELD: No. The Court held that while it is true that the Court must refrain from reviewing the internal
processes of Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, however, when a constitutional
requirement exists, the Court has the duty to look into Congress’ compliance therewith.  

Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution states that:

The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in
aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of person appearing
in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.

The Court held that Committees does not have the discretion to set aside their rules anytime they wish.
This is especially true here where what is involved is the contempt power. It must be stressed that the
Rules are not promulgated for their benefit. The duty to Court is to make sure there will not be a grave
abuse of discretion on their part.
In the case of Lambino vs COMELEC

FACTS: This is the case wherein the petitioners proposed to amend the Constitution. The proposed
change will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential System to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of
government. in which the executive and legislature shall be one and the same.

HELD:

The Court held that the proposition implies that there will be no separation between the law-making
and enforcement powers of the state, that are traditionally delineated between the executive and
legislature in a presidential form of government. And That our present governmental system is built on
the separation of powers among the three branches of government. The legislature is generally limited
to the enactment of laws, the executive to the enforcement of laws and the judiciary to the application
of laws. This separation is intended to prevent a concentration of authority in one person or group that
might lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of our republican institutions.
In the words of Justice Laurel, the doctrine of separation of powers is intended to secure action, to
forestall overaction, to prevent despotism and obtain efficiency. The separation of powers embodies in
our Constitution act in the best interests of its citizens through this system of checks and balances.