I.
The Principle of Separation of Powers
The theory of the separation of powers is designed by its originators to secure
action and at the same time to forestall over action which necessarily results from
undue concentration of powers, and thereby obtain efficiency and prevent
deposition (Pangasinan, Inc. v. Public Service Commission).
The post-enactment measures which govern the areas of project identification,
fund release and fund realignment are not related to functions of congressional
oversight and, hence, allow legislators to intervene or assume duties that properly
belong to the sphere of budget execution.
The fundamental rule, as categorically articulated in Abakada, cannot be
overstated. 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 (Belgica v. Ochoa).
II. The Principle of Checks and Balances
There is an underlying power in the Courts to scrutinize the acts of
administrative agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction although no right of
review is given by statute. This is designed to keep the administrative agency within
its jurisdiction and to protect substantial rights of parties affected by its decisions.
It is part of the system of checks and balances which restricts the separation of
powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudication (San Miguel Corporation v.
Secretary of Labor).
III. Comity
In the absence of a special contract, no sovereign is bound to give effect
within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country;
however, under the rules of comity, utility and convenience, nations have
established a usage among civilized states by which final judgments of foreign
courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious
under certain conditions that may vary in different countries.
A foreign judgment or order against a person is merely presumptive evidence
of a right as between the parties. It may be repelled, among others, by want of
jurisdiction of the issuing authority or by want of notice to the party against whom
it is enforced. The party attacking a foreign judgment has the burden of overcoming
the presumption of its validity (St. Aviation v. Grand International Air).
IV. Hierarchy of Laws/Ordinances
In the area of public law, foremost in this hierarchy is the Philippine
Constitution, whose Article XII (entitled National Economy and Patrimony)
establishes and fully embraces the Regalian Doctrine as a first and overriding
principle. This doctrine postulates that all lands belong to the State, and that no
public land can be acquired by private persons without any grant, express or
implied, from the State.
Public lands suitable for agricultural purposes can be disposed of only as
follows and not otherwise: (1) For homestead settlement; (2) By sale; (3) By lease; (4)
By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title; (5) By judicial legalization; (6) By
administrative legalization (free patent) (Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic).
V. Power of Judicial Review
The power of judicial review is the power of the courts to test the validity of
executive and legislative acts for their conformity with the Constitution. Through
such power, the judiciary enforces and upholds the supremacy of the Constitution.
For a court to exercise this power, certain requirements must first be met, namely:
(1) An actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;
(2) The person challenging the act must have "standing" to challenge; he must
have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or
will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement;
(3) The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity; and
(4) The issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case (Garcia
v. Executive Secretary).
VI. Doctrine of Operative Fact
Under the operative fact doctrine, the unconstitutional law remains
unconstitutional, but the effects of the unconstitutional law, prior to its judicial
declaration of nullity, may be left undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play.
The Cityhood Laws remain unconstitutional because they violate Section 10,
Article X of the Constitution. However, the effects of its implementation prior to the
declaration of their nullity, such as the payment of salaries and supplies by the
“new cities” or their issuance of licenses or execution of contracts, may be
recognized as valid and effective. This does not mean that the Cityhood Laws are
valid for they remain void (League of Cities v. COMELEC).
VII. Political Question Doctrine
The term 'political question’ connotes what it means in ordinary parlance,
namely a question of policy. It refers to those questions which, under the
Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in
regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or
executive branch of government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the
wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.
Whether an election of public officers has been in accordance with law is for
the judiciary. Moreover, where the legislative department has by statute prescribed
election procedure in a given situation, the judiciary may determine whether a
particular election has been in conformity with such statute, and, particularly,
whether such statute has been applied in a way to deny or transgress on the
constitutional or statutory rights (Tanada v. Cuenco).
VIII. Police Power
Police power has been defined as the power vested by the Constitution in the
legislature to make, ordain and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable
laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to
the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the
commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same. The power is plenary and its scope
is vast and pervasive, reaching and justifying measures for public health, public
safety, public morals, and the general welfare.
Police power is lodged primarily in the National Legislature. It cannot be
exercised by any group or body of individuals not possessing legislative power. The
National Legislature, however, may delegate this power to the President and
administrative boards as well as the lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or
local government units. Once delegated, the agents can exercise only such
legislative powers as are conferred on them by the national lawmaking body.
Unlike the legislative bodies of local government units, there is no provision in
R.A. 7924 that empowers the MMDA or its council to “enact ordinances, approve
resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare” of the inhabitants of
Metro Manila. Thus, MMDA may not order the opening of Neptune St. in the Bel-Air
Subdivision to public traffic, as it does not possess delegated police power.
IX. Power of Eminent Domain
Eminent domain is the right or power of a sovereign state to appropriate
private property to particular uses to promote public welfare. But the exercise of
such right is not unlimited, for two mandatory requirements should underlie the
Government's exercise of the power of eminent domain, namely: (1) that it is for a
particular public purpose; and (2) that just compensation be paid to the property
owner.
“Taking” requires that: First, the expropriator must enter a private property;
Second, the entrance into private property must be for more than a momentary
period; Third, the entry into the property should be under warrant or color of legal
authority; Fourth, the property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise
informally appropriated or injuriously affected; and Fifth, the utilization of the
property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him
of all beneficial enjoyment of the property
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property
taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the taker's gain, but
the owner's loss. The value of the property should be fixed as of the date when it
was taken and not the date of the filing of the proceedings (National Transmission
Corp. vs. Oroville Development Corp.).
X. Power of Taxation
The City of Cebu, as a local government unit, has the power to collect real
property taxes from the MCIAA. There is no question that under R.A. 6958, MCIAA
is exempt from the payment of realty taxes imposed by the National Government or
any of its political subdivisions; nevertheless, since taxation is the rule, the
exemption may be withdrawn at the pleasure of the taxing authority. The only
exception to this rule is where the exemption was granted to private parties based
on material consideration of a mutual nature, which then becomes contractual and
is thus covered by the non-impairment clause of the Constitution (MCIAA v.
Marcos).
XI. Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency
The doctrine of qualified political agency or alter ego principle means that the
acts of the secretaries of the Executive departments performed and promulgated in
the regular course of business are presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.
Exceptions:
(1) In cases where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or by
the law to act in person; or
(2) The exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the
multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are
performed by and through the executive departments (Villena v. Sec. of Interior).
XII. Non-Delegation of Power
In determining whether the delegation of legislative power is valid, the
distinction is between the delegation of power to make the law which necessarily
involves discretion as to what it shall be, and the conferment of an authority or
discretion as to its execution to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law.
Discretion may be committed by the Legislature to an executive department or
official.
In enacting the provision of the Administrative Code, the Legislature merely
conferred upon the provincial governor discretionary authority to the execution of
the law. The provincial governor and the provincial board, as the official
representatives of the province, are better qualified to judge when such as course is
deemed necessary in the interest of law and order (Rubi v. Provincial Board of
Mindoro).
XIII. Power of Control
Control is the power of an officer to alter, modify, nullify or set aside what a
subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the
judgment of the former for that of the latter (Mondano v. Silvosa).
XIV. Power of Supervision
Supervision, in administrative law, means overseeing or the power or
authority of an official to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. The
heads of various executive departments are agents of the President who,
constitutionally, have general supervision over local governments, as may be
provided by law (Mondano v. Silvosa).
Sec. 187, R.A. 7160, which authorizes the Secretary of Justice to review the
constitutionality or legality of a tax ordinance (and, if warranted, to revoke it on
either or both grounds) is valid, and does not confer the power of control over local
government units in the Secretary of Justice, as even if the latter can set aside a tax
ordinance, he cannot substitute his own judgment for that of the local government
unit (Drilon v. Lim).
Under Administrative Order No. 23, the President has delegated the power to
investigate complaints to the Secretary of Interior and Local Government. This is
valid delegation because what is delegated is only the power to investigate, not the
power to discipline. Besides, the power of the Secretary of Interior and Local
Government to investigate is based on the alter ego principle (Joson v. Torres).
XV. Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy
Under this doctrine, if a law or contract violates any norm of the Constitution,
that law or contract, whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive
branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes, is null and void and
without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental,
paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and
contract (Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS).
XVI. Separation of Church and State
In Austria v. NLRC, concerning the dismissal of petitioner, a minister, for
misappropriation of denominational funds, willful breach of trust, serious
misconduct and gross and habitual neglect of duties, the Supreme Court had
occasion to define an ecclesiastical affair as one that concerns doctrine, creed or
form of worship of the church, or the adoption and enforcement within a religious
association of needful laws and regulations for the government of the membership,
and the power of excluding from such associations those deemed unworthy of
membership
Based on this definition, an ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship
between the church and its members and relates to matters of faith, religious
doctrines, worship and governance of the congregation. Examples of these affairs in
which the State cannot meddle are proceedings for excommunication, ordination of
religious ministers, administration of sacraments, and other activities to which is
attached religious significance. In this case, what is involved is the relationship of
the church as an employer and the minister as an employee. It is purely secular and
has no relation whatsoever with the practice of faith, worship or doctrine of the
church (Austria v. NLRC).
