NOTES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

By Atty. Franklin Cueto

Part IV - SEPARATION OF POWERS, CHECKS AND BALANCES and

DELEGATION OF POWERS

A. Separation of Powers

Ø Manifestations of Republicanism

i. OURS IS A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS AND NOT OF MEN

(Villavicencio vs. Lukban, GR L-14639, March 25, 1919);
ii. Rule of the majority (Plurality in elections)
iii. Accountability of public officials
iv. Bill of Rights
v. Legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws
vi. SEPARATION OF POWERS
vii. NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS

Ø Principle of Separation of Powers

i. Under 1987 Constitution

ii. Why is it observed in our Government?
iii. What is the purpose?
iv. Acc. to Justice Laurel –
• to secure action
• to forestall overaction
• to prevent despotism
• to obtain efficiency
v. To be understood not as INDEPENDENCE but
INTERDEPENDENCE
vi. Doctrine of Blending of Powers

Ø Which department ensures the constitutional distribution of

powers?

i. Does it mean such department is superior to the other

departments? Angara vs. Electoral Commission;

ii. Case Illustration of Separation of Powers: Congressional

Oversight Committees
• Abakada Guro Party List vs. Purisima, GR 166715,
Aug. 14, 2008;
• Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR 208566, Nov. 19, 2013

Ø WHAT IS THE TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER A GIVEN

POWER HAS BEEN VALIDLY EXERCISED BY A
PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT?

i. FIRST, SC determines whether the power has been

constitutionally conferred upon the department. Conferment
of power is either: EXPRESS, IMPLIED, INHERENT OR
INCIDENTAL;

ii. SECOND, after sustaining the exercise of power (meaning,

there is determination of valid constitutional grant of power to
exercise), the SC’s official action does not stop there; it now
then determines whether the act in question had been
 performed in accordance with the rules laid down by the
constitution.

• But you should qualify whether the question involved

is Justiciable or Political –

o JUSTICIABLE VS. POLITICAL

QUESTIONS?

o Sec. 1 par. 2 Art. VIII – IF POLITICAL

QUESTIONS – TRULY POLITICAL
QUESTIONS VS. NOT TRULY POLITICAL
QUESTIONS?

- Francisco vs. HR
- Tanada vs. Angara GR 118295, May 2,
1997
- Defensor vs. Guingona GR 134577,
Nov. 18, 1998
- Vinuya vs. Exec. Secretary, GR 162230,
April 28, 2010
- Arigo vs. Swift, GR 206510, Sept. 16,
2014
- Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR 208566, Nov.
19, 2013

B. Checks and Balances

Ø Doctrine of Checks and Balances, Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR

208566, Nov. 19, 2013 on Presidential Veto Power;

C. Delegation of Powers

Ø General rule is non-delegation

i. Potestas Delegata Non Potest Delegare
ii. Jaworski vs. PAGCOR, GR 144463, Jan. 14, 2004;
iii. Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR 208566, Nov. 19, 2013

Ø Not absolute, because there are exceptions (PERMISSIBLE

DELEGATIONS) –
i. Delegation of tariff powers to the President under Sec. 28(2)
Art. VI of the Constitution;
ii. Delegation of emergency powers to the President under
Sec. 23(2) Art. VI of the Constitution;
iii. Delegation to the people at large under initiative and
referendum;
iv. Delegation to local governments;
v. Delegation to administrative bodies.

Ø Tests of Valid Delegation

i. Again, general rule is, there is non-delegation of powers;
ii. But there are exceptions, where powers can be permissibly
delegated;
iii. Assuming it falls under the exception, you still have to
determine whether these exceptions (permissible
delegations) has been validly made;
iv. To be valid, delegation itself must be circumscribed by
legislative restrictions (otherwise, delegation is tantamount to
2
 abdication of legislative authority, a total surrender by
legislature of its prerogatives in favor of the delegate);

• COMPLETENESS TEST, People vs. Dacuycuy, G.R.

L-45127, May 5, 1989;

• SUFFICIENCY STANDARD TEST

o Chiongbian vs. Orbos GR 96754, June 22, 1995;
o Gerochi vs. Dept. of Energy GR 159796, July
17, 2007;
o Belgica vs. Ochoa, GR 208566, Nov. 19,
2013 on Presidential Pork Barrel

Ø Principle of Sub-delegation of powers

i. Transmission of power from head of agency to his

subordinates for purposes of expediency and achieving
maximum efficiency in public service;

ii. Example is DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL

AGENCY

• President delegate certain powers to members of

cabinet, who are his alter egos;

• Villena vs. Secretary of Interior, GR L-46570, April 21,

1939;