SEPARATION OF POWERS

- 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. [Angara vs. Electoral Commission (1936)]
CHECKS AND BALANCES
- 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. For example, the Chief Executive under our
Constitution is so far made a check on the legislative power that this assent is required in the enactment
of laws. This, however, is subject to the further check that a bill may become a law notwithstanding the
refusal of the President to approve it, by a vote of two-thirds or three-fourths, as the case may be, of the
National Assembly. The President has also the right to convene the Assembly in special session whenever
he chooses. On the other hand, the National Assembly operates as a check on the Executive in the sense
that its consent through its Commission on Appointments is necessary in the appointments of certain
officers; and the concurrence of a majority of all its members is essential to the conclusion of treaties.
Furthermore, in its power to determine what courts other than the Supreme Court shall be established,
to define their jurisdiction and to appropriate funds for their support, the National Assembly controls the
judicial department to a certain extent. The Assembly also exercises the judicial power of trying
impeachments. And the judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks
the other departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to declare executive
and legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution. [Angara vs. Electoral Commission (1936)]
Judicial Review
Constitutional Basis
The power of judicial review is conferred on the judicial branch of the government in Section 1, Article
VIII of our present 1987 Constitution:
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government. (Emphasis supplied)
[Francisco vs House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003]
Theory, Rationale, and Restrictions of Judicial Review
The Constitution is a definition of the powers of government. Who is to determine the nature, scope and
extent of such powers? The Constitution itself has provided for the instrumentality of the judiciary as the
rational way. And when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert
any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the
legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned 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 that instrument secures and guarantees to them. This is in truth all
that is involved in what is termed "judicial supremacy" which properly is the power of judicial review
under the Constitution. Even then, this power of judicial review is limited to actual cases and
controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by the parties, and limited further to the
constitutional question raised or the very lis mota presented. Any attempt at abstraction could only lead
to dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities. Narrowed as
its function is in this manner, the judiciary does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or
expediency of legislation. More than that, courts accord the presumption of constitutionality to
legislative enactments, not only because the legislature is presumed to abide by the Constitution but
also because the judiciary in the determination of actual cases and controversies must reflect the
wisdom and justice of the people as expressed through their representatives in the executive and
legislative departments of the government. [Angara v. Electoral Commission, G.R. No. 45081, July 15,
1936 cited in Francisco vs House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003]
By virtue of this prerogative, the Supreme Court either checks or legitimates the acts of a coordinate
department, challenged in an appropriate legal proceeding. The decision rendered then, whether one of
approval or of rejection, of validity or of unconstitutionality, is controlling. [Mitra vs Comelec, G.R. No. L-
56503, April 4, 1981]
Requisites of Judicial Review
The Court's power of judicial review may be exercised in constitutional cases only if all the following
requisites are complied with, namely:
(1) the existence of an actual and appropriate case or controversy;
(2) a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question;
(3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and
(4) the constitutional question is the lis mota of the case.
[See Montesclaros vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 152295, July 9, 2002]
A. Actual Case or Controversy
An actual case or controversy is one that involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal
claims susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal
or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice. Stated otherwise, it is not the mere
existence of a conflict or controversy that will authorize the exercise by the courts of its power of review;
more importantly, the issue involved must be susceptible of judicial determination. Excluded from these
are questions of policy or wisdom, otherwise referred to as political questions. [Garcia v. Executive
Secretary, G.R. No. 157584, April 2, 2009]
A justiciable controversy has been defined as, a definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal
relations of parties having adverse legal interests which may be resolved by a court of law through the
application of a law. Courts have no judicial power to review cases involving political questions and as a
rule, will desist from taking cognizance of speculative or hypothetical cases, advisory opinions and in
cases that has become moot. Subject to certain well-defined exceptions courts will not touch an issue
involving the validity of a law unless there has been a governmental act accomplished or performed that
has a direct adverse effect on the legal right of the person contesting its validity. [Cutaran vs DENR, G.R.
No. 134958, January 31, 2001]
Prematurity
In PACU vs. Secretary of Education [G.R. No. L-5279, October 31, 1955] the petition contesting the
validity of a regulation issued by the Secretary of Education requiring private schools to secure a permit
to operate was dismissed on the ground that all the petitioners have permits and are actually operating
under the same. The petitioners questioned the regulation because of the possibility that the permit
might be denied them in the future. The Court held that there was no justiciable controversy because
the petitioners suffered no wrong by the implementation of the questioned regulation and therefore,
they are not entitled to relief. A mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education will withdraw the
permit does not amount to a justiciable controversy.
In Montesclaros vs. Comelec [G.R. No. 152295, July 9, 2002], the prayer to prevent Congress from
enacting into law a proposed bill lowering the membership age in the SK does not present an actual
justiciable controversy. A proposed bill is not subject to judicial review because it is not a law. A
proposed bill creates no right and imposes no duty legally enforceable by the Court. There can be no
justiciable controversy involving the constitutionality of a proposed bill. The Court can exercise its power
of judicial review only after a law is enacted, not before.
Under the separation of powers, the Court cannot restrain Congress from passing any law, or from
setting into motion the legislative mill according to its internal rules. Thus, the following acts of Congress
in the exercise of its legislative powers are not subject to judicial restraint: the filing of bills by members
of Congress, the approval of bills by each chamber of Congress, the reconciliation by the Bicameral
Committee of approved bills, and the eventual approval into law of the reconciled bills by each chamber
of Congress. Absent a clear violation of specific constitutional limitations or of constitutional rights of
private parties, the Court cannot exercise its power of judicial review over the internal processes or
procedures of Congress.
Exceptions to mootness
As an exception to the rule on mootness, courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of
repetition yet evading review. [Pimentel vs Ermita, G.R. No. 164978, October 13, 2005; Tolentino v.
Comelec, G.R. No. 148334, January 21, 2004 citing Acop vs. Guingona, Jr., G.R. No. 134855, July 2,
2002]
As a general rule, courts decline jurisdiction over cases rendered moot. However, courts will decide
cases, otherwise moot and academic, in the following situations:
(i) there is a grave violation of the Constitution;
(ii) the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved;
(iii) when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the
bar, and the public;
(iv) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
[see David vs Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006]
B. Proper Party
"Legal standing" or locus standi refers to a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party
has sustained or will sustain direct injury because of the challenged governmental act. xxx Thus,
generally, a party will be allowed to litigate only when (1) he can show that he has personally suffered
some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; (2) the
injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable
action. [Tolentino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 148334, January 21, 2004]
The term "interest" means a material interest, an interest in issue affected by the decree, as
distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. Unless
a person's constitutional rights are adversely affected by the statute or ordinance, he has no legal
standing. [Jumamil vs.Cafe, G.R. No. 144570, September 21, 2005]
[see also Joya vs PCGG, G.R. No. 96541, August 24, 1993; Agan vs PIATCO, G.R. No. 155001, May 5,
2003, CHR Employee's Association vs CHR, G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004]
Citizen Standing
The mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest, when the proceeding
involves the assertion of a public right.[Chavez vs PEA AMARI, G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002]
When the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement
of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real party in interest and the relator at whose instigation
the proceedings are instituted need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result, it
being sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as such interested in the execution of the laws. [Tanada
vs Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, April 24, 1985]
Voter's Standing
The Court has relaxed the requirement on standing and exercised its discretion to give due course to
voters' suits involving the right of suffrage.[Tolentino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 148334, January 21, 2004]
Taxpayer's Standing
Parties suing as taxpayers must specifically prove sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure
of money raised by taxation. The expenditure of public funds by an officer of the State for the purpose of
executing an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of such funds...A taxpayer need not be a
party to the contract to challenge its validity. [Jumamil vs. Cafe, G.R. No. 144570, September 21, 2005]
Association's standing
The modern view is that an association has standing to complain of injuries to its members. This view
fuses the legal identity of an association with that of its members. An association has standing to file suit
for its workers despite its lack of direct interest if its members are affected by the action. An organization
has standing to assert the concerns of its constituents. x x x The [association] is the appropriate party to
assert the rights of its members, because it and its members are in every practical sense identical. The
[association] is but the medium through which its individual members seek to make more effective the
expression of their voices and the redress of their grievances. [Pharmaceutical and Health Care
Association of the Philippines vs. (DOH) Health Secretary Francisco T. Duque III, G.R. No.
173034, October 9, 2007]
An association has legal standing to to represent its members because the results of the case will affect
their vital interests. [Purok Bagong Silang Association, Inc. v. Yuipco, G.R. No. 135092, May 4, 2006]
Exception to locus standi requirement: Transcendental importance
In not a few cases, the Court has liberalized the locus standi requirement when a petition raises an issue
of transcendental significance or paramount importance to the people.
Objections to a taxpayer's suit for lack of sufficient personality, standing or interest are procedural
matters. Considering the importance to the public of a suit assailing the constitutionality of a tax law,
and in keeping with the Court's duty, specially explicated in the 1987 Constitution, to determine whether
or not the other branches of the Government have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution
and the laws and that they have not abused the discretion given to them, the Supreme Court may brush
aside technicalities of procedure and take cognizance of the suit.
There being no doctrinal definition of transcendental importance, the following determinants
formulated by former Supreme Court Justice Florentino P. Feliciano are instructive: (1) the character of
the funds or other assets involved in the case; (2) the presence of a clear case of disregard of a
constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public respondent agency or instrumentality of the
government; and (3) the lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest in raising the
questions being raised. [Jumamil vs. Cafe, G.R. No. 144570, September 21, 2005][ see also David vs
Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006]
C. Lis Mota of the case
The constitutionality of an act of the legislature will not be determined by the courts unless that
question is properly raised and presented in appropriate cases and is necessary to a determination of the
case, i.e., the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota presented. [National Economic
Protectionism Association et al. vs. Ongpin, G.R. No. 67752, April 10, 1989]
Lis mota - the fourth requirement to satisfy before [the] Court will undertake judicial review - means that
the Court will not pass upon a question of unconstitutionality, although properly presented, if the case
can be disposed of on some other ground, such as the application of the statute or the general law. The
petitioner must be able to show that the case cannot be legally resolved unless the constitutional
question raised is determined. This requirement is based on the rule that every law has in its favor the
presumption of constitutionality; to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach
of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative, or argumentative.[Garcia v. Executive
Secretary, G.R. No. 157584, April 2, 2009]