ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: SEPARATION OF

ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER POWERS

USEC. RYAN L. ESTEVEZ, MARE, MPP
DOCTRINE OF 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)]
DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS

 Separation of powers is founded on the belief that, by establishing equilibrium among

the three power holders, harmony will result, power will not be concentrated and
thus tyranny will be avoided. [Bernas,The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive
Reviewer (2011)]
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.
CHECKS AND BALANCES

 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.
CHECKS AND BALANCES

 On the other hand, the National Assembly (CONGRESS)

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.
CHECKS AND BALANCES

 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 (CONGRESS) controls the judicial
department to a certain extent. The Assembly also exercises the
judicial power of trying impeachments.
CHECKS AND BALANCES

 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)]
DOCTRINE OF NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS

 A necessary corollary of the doctrine of separation of powers

prohibits the delegation of legislative power, the vesting of
judicial officers with non-judicial functions, as well as the
investing of non-judicial officers with judicial powers. Any
attempt at such delegation is unconstitutional and void. (People
vs.Vera)
DOCTRINE OF NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS

 BASIS: “POTESTAS DELEGATA NON POTEST DELEGARI” (what

has been delegated cannot be delegated)
This is based on the ethical principle that such delegated
power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by
the delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and
not through the intervening mind of another.
DOCTRINE OF NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS

 In the face of the increasing complexity of modern life, delegation of legislative power to various specialized
administrative agencies is allowed as an exception to this principle. Given the volume and variety of interactions
in today's society, it is doubtful if the legislature can promulgate laws that will deal adequately with and respond
promptly to the minutiae of everyday life. Hence, the need to delegate to administrative bodies - the principal
agencies tasked to execute laws in their specialized fields - the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to
implement a given statute and effectuate its policies. All that is required for the valid exercise of this power of
subordinate legislation is that the regulation be germane to the objects and purposes of the law and that the
regulation be not in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by the law. These
requirements are denominated as the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. (Gerochi vs. Department of
Energy)
DOCTRINE OF NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS – NOT ABSOLUTE
REQUISITES OF VALID DELEGATION:

 Under the [COMPLETENESS TEST], the statute must leave the legislature complete in all its terms and
provisions such that all the delegate will have to do when the statute reaches it is to implement it. What only can
be delegated is not the discretion to determine what the law shall be but the discretion to determine how the
law shall be enforced.
 Under the [SUFFICIENT STANDARD TEST], the enforcement may be effected only in accordance with a
sufficient standard, the function of which is to map out the boundaries of the delegate's authority and thus
prevent the delegation from running riot. (Solicitor General vs. Metro Manila Authority) (see also People vs Judge
Dacuycuy, G.R. No. L-45127, May 5, 1989)
 Both tests must be complied with. [Pelaez v. Auditor General (1965)]
 [See also Abakada Guro Partylist vs Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008]
DOCTRINE OF NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS – NOT ABSOLUTE
REQUISITES OF VALID DELEGATION- SOME OF THE INSTANCES OF
SUFFICIENT STANDARDS:

 1. “NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF LAW AND ORDER” ( US VS. Kiinkead)

 2. “NECESSARY OR ADVISABLE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST” ( People vs. Rosenthal and Osmena, 68 Phil. 328)
 3. “TO PROMOTE SIMPLICITY, ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY” ( Cervantes vs. Auditor General, 91 Phil. 359)
 4. “OF A MORAL, EDUCATIONAL OR AMUSING AND HARMLESS CHARACTER” ( Mutual Film Co. v.
Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 US 230)
 5. “TO MAINTAIN MONETARY STABILITY, PROMOTE A RISING LEVEL OF PRODUCTION,
EMPLOYMENT AND REAL INCOME” (People vs. Jollife, 105 Phil. 677)
DOCTRINE OF NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS – NOT ABSOLUTE
REQUISITES OF VALID DELEGATION- SOME OF THE INSTANCES OF
SUFFICIENT STANDARDS:

 6. “ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT INSTRUCTION” ( Phils. Association of Colleges and Universities vs. Sec. of
Education, 97 Phil. 806)
 7. “SIMPLICITY AND DIGNITY” ( Balbuena vs. Sec of Education, 110 Phil. 150)
 8. “JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND SUBSTANTIAL MERITS OF THE CASE” ( International Hardwood and Venner
Co. vs. Pangil Federation of Labor, 70 Phil 602)
 9. “FAIR AND EQUITABLE EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES” (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc vs. POEA, 166 SCRA 533)
 10. “AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE, “ “DECLINE OF CRUDE OIL PRICES IN THE WORLD MARKET” AND
“STABILITY OF THE PESO EXCHANGE RATE TO THE US DOLLAR” ( Tatad vs. Sec. of Energy, 281 SCRA 330)
DOCTRINE OF NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS – NOT ABSOLUTE
RECOGNIZED EXCEPTION TO THE RULE:

 1. Delegation of tariff powers to the President under Section 28 (2) of Article VI of

the Constitution;
 2. Delegation of emergency powers to the President under Section 23 (2) of Article VI of the
Constitution;
 3. Delegation to the people at large;
 4. Delegation to Local Governments;
 5. Delegation to administrative units
THE NEED FOR DELEGATION:

 1. Matters requiring more specialized knowledge and

expertise by administrative agencies.
 2. Details and questions beyond the capacity of
legislature to determine.