Separation of powers and delegation of power
'determining the nature, scope and extent of
Mimiscal v. Abdullah
Doctrine: As explained by this court in the
landmark case of Angara v. Electoral
Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936): 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.
View that a careful consideration of the
complaint reveals that Abdullah is being held to
account for acts committed in the course of his
performance of functions, not as clerk of court
but as a circuit (or civil) registrar. He is
therefore being charged, not in his capacity as
an officer performing judicial functions, but as
an officer performing executive functions. In
accordance with the principle of separation of
powers thus, the task of disciplining Abdulla
does not fall upon the Supreme Court.
In RE Laurea and Maravilla
Doctrine: Judicial Independence - The
fundamental principle of separation of powers
and checks and balances under a republican
form of government [means] that the three co-
equal branches of government, the executive,
legislative and judicial, are each supreme and
independent within the limits of its own sphere.
Neither one can interfere with the performance
of the duties of the other. Our Constitution "as
'a definition of the powers of government'
placed upon the judiciary the great burden of
such powers' and 'when the judiciary mediates
to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does
not assert any superiority over the other
departments .. but only asserts the solemn and
sacred obligation entrusted 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 the instrument secures and
guarantees to them.'"
Arnault vs. Balagtas
Doctrine: The judicial department of the
government has no right or power or authority
to review the findings of legislative bodies in
the exercise of the prerogative 'of legislation, or
interfere with their proceedings or their
discretion in what is known as the legislative
process, much in the same manner that the
legislative department may not invade the
judicial realm in the ascertainment of truth and
in the application and interpretation of the law,
in what is known as the judicial process,
because that would be in direct conflict with
the fundamental principle of separation of
powers established by the Constitution. The
only instances when judicial intervention may
lawfully be invoked are when there has been a
violation of a constitutional inhibition, or when
there has been an arbitrary exercise of the
legislative discretion.
Belgica v. Ochoa
Doctrine: Separation of Powers. Under the 2013
PDAF Article, legislators have been 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. From the moment the law becomes
effective, 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.
NPC Drivers and Mechanical Association v.
Napocor
Doctrine: The Court has residual authority to
ensure the proper enforcement and
implementation of its final judgment. In the
exercise of this residual authority,the Supreme
Court may delegate to another court the
execution of its final rulings. The Court does not
surrender its authority to execute its final
rulings by such delegation. In other words, the
Supreme Court maintains its authority over all
matters concerning the implementation of its
final rulings and issue such orders necessary for
their implementation.
Garcia v. Executive Secretary
Doctrine: In the fourth place, petitioner’s
concept which he urges us to build into our
constitutional and customs law, is a stiflingly
narrow one. Section 401 of the Tariff and
Customs Code estabishes general standards
with which the exercise of the authority
delegated by that provision to the President
must be consistent: that authority must be
exercised in “the interest of national economy,
general welfare and/or national security.”
US v. Tang Ho
Doctrine: The legislature cannot delegate its
power to make a law, but it can make a law to
delegate a power to determine some fact or
state of things upon which the law makes, or
intends to make, its own action to depend
CoTeSCUP v. Secretary of Education
Doctrine: In determining whether or not a
statute constitutes an undue delegation of
legislative power, the Court has adopted two
tests:
(a) Completeness test: the law must be
complete in all its terms and conditions when it
leaves the legislature such that when it reaches
the delegate, the only thing he will have to do is
to enforce it. The policy to be executed or
implemented by the delegate must be set forth
therein.
(b) Sufficient standard test: there must be
adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to
determine the boundaries of the delegate's
authority and prevent the delegation from
running riot. To be sufficient, the standard must
specify the limits of the delegate's authority,
announce the legislative policy and identify the
conditions under which it is to be implemented.
Under the two tests, the K to 12 Law, read and
appreciated in its entirety, is complete in all
essential terms and conditions and contains
sufficient parameters on the power delegated to
the DepEd, CHED and TESDA. The K to 12
Law (Section 2) adequately provides the
legislative policy that it seeks to implement.
Moreover, scattered throughout the K to 12
Law are the standards to guide the DepEd,
CHED and TESDA in carrying out the provisions
of the law, from the development of the K to 12
BEC, to the hiring and training of teaching
personnel and to the formulation of appropriate
strategies in order to address the changes
during the transition period.
The fact that the K to 12 Law did not have any
provision on labor does not make said law
incomplete. The purpose of permissible
delegation to administrative agencies is for the
latter to "implement the broad policies laid
down in a statute by 'filling in' the details which
the Congress may not have the opportunity or
competence to provide.
Pelaez v. Auditor General
Doctrine: Although Congress may delegate to
another branch of the government the power
to fill in the details in the execution,
enforcement or administration of a law, it is
essential, to forestall a violation of the principle
of separation of powers, that said law:
(a) be complete in itself - it must set forth
therein the policy to be executed, carried out or
implemented by the delegate; and
(b) fix a standard - the limits of which are
sufficiently determinate or determinable - to
which the delegate must conform in the
performance of his functions
Section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code
does not meet these well settled requirements
for a valid delegation of the power to fix the
details in the enforcement of a law. It does not
enunciate any policy to be carried out or
implemented by the President. Neither does it
give a standard sufficiently precise to avoid the
evil effects above referred to.
People v. Dacuycuy
Doctrine: Absence of designated limits in the
court's discretion to fix length of imprisonment
constitute an undue delegation of legislative
power.
Center (CICC) the power to formulate a national
cybersecurity plan without any sufficient
standards or parameters for it to follow.. In
order to determine whether there is undue
delegation of legislative power, the Court has
adopted two tests: Under the completeness
test, the law must be complete in all its terms
and conditions when it leaves the legislature
such that when it reaches the delegate, the only
thing he will have to do is to enforce it. The
sufficient standard test mandates adequate
guidelines or limitations in the law to determine
the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and
prevent the delegation from running riot.
People vs Teng Moner
Doctrine: Under the doctrine of separation of
powers, it is important to distinguish if a matter
is a proper subject of the rules of evidence,
which as shown above are promulgated by the
Court, or it is a subject of substantive law, and
should be passed by an act of Congress.

Private respondents argue that the entire penal

provision in question should be invalidated as
an "undue delegation of legislative power, the
duration of penalty of imprisonment being
solely left to the discretion of the court as if the
latter were the legislative department of the
government."

Sema v. Comelec

Doctrine: Creation of provinces, cities and

municipalities requires a legislative act from
Congress, while creation of a barangay may be
delegated to local legislative bodies

Disini v. Secretary of Justice

Doctrine: Undue Delegation of Legislative -

Power. Petitioners contend that Congress
invalidly delegated its power when it gave the
Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating