Separation of powers

Article II, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution states that “the Philippines is a democratic and republican state.”

One of the manifestations of republicanism is separation of powers among the three co-equal branches of government, namely the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

In his book, former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Nachura explains that the purpose of this separation of powers is “to prevent concentration of authority in one person or group of persons that might lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of republican institutions.”

And then we have what we call the political question doctrine. In the case of Tanada vs. Cuenco, the SC defined this as “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 legislature or executive branch of government.”

Nachura in his book cited the case of Defensor-Santiago vs. Guingona (1998) where Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago questioned the election of Sen. Teofisto Guingona as minority floor leader. The high court said the judiciary “has no authority to interfere and unilaterally intrude into that exclusive realm, without running afoul of constitutional principles that it is bound to protect and uphold – the very duty that justifies the court’s being.”

The court added: “Constitutional respect and a becoming regard for the sovereign acts of a co-equal branch prevent this court from prying into the internal workings of the Senate.”

But this does not mean the principle of checks and balances, which Nachura explained, allows one department to rectify mistakes or excesses committed by the other departments, does not apply.

The scope of the political question doctrine, he said in his book, has been limited by Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution which vests in the judiciary the power “to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government.”

In the case of Angara vs. Electoral Commission, the court pointed out that when the court mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries or invalidates the acts of a coordinate body, what it upholds is not its own superiority, but the supremacy of the Constitution.

Thus, when one branch of government wants to question the validity of an act committed by a co-equal branch, it has to be done through the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which is the relief allowed “when any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”

Just recently, the House of Representatives held in contempt and ordered detained six Ilocos Norte provincial officials and employees for refusing to cooperate in a legislative inquiry in connection with their capitol’s alleged misuse of tobacco excise taxes to acquire vehicles more than five years ago. The six said they could not remember the transactions.

But the Court of Appeals, responding to a petition for habeas corpus, ordered the release of the six to which Congress retaliated by issuing a show-cause order to CA Associate Justices Stephen Cruz, Edwin Sorongan, and Nina Antonio or the members of the court’s fourth division which asked the justices to explain why they should not be cited in contempt for ordering the detained officials’ release.

The appellate court later granted the employees petition for bail and issued an order for their release.

This was followed by SC Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno calling on the House to recall the show cause order issued against the CA. Sereno, however, has not put her recall request in writing.

The House refused to comply with the CA order and the six are still in detention. House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez even went to the extent of threatening to dissolve the CA.

The House Committee on Good Government and Accountability, chaired by Rep. Johnny Pimentel, maintained that the power of contempt is not subject to judicial review. 

An earlier news report revealed that Sereno could not put her request in writing because the matter has not been taken up by the Supreme Court and, therefore, her statement did not represent the official position of the body.

One justice was quoted as saying that the SC never gives advisory opinions to the Court of Appeals on pending cases before it. 

One of the CA justices who issued the release order, Justice Stephen Cruz, was interviewed by members of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC)  as part of the ongoing search to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court with the retirement of Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes.

 During the interview, Cruz defended the CA’s course of action, saying it was done to determine really if the detention was legal.

But JBC execom chairperson retired SC Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez asked Cruz why they ordered the release when they have yet to determine whether or not the detention is legal.

Cruz countered by saying that in habeas corpus petitions. persons can be released on bail while the merit of their cases are being determined. 

 During a recent House hearing, Rep. Harry Roque asserted Congress’ contempt powers and said that instead of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the six Ilocos officials should have filed a petition for certiorari. 

 We are not defending the six officials. There is indeed a need to determine whether or not the vehicles were illegally purchased and without  the benefit of public bidding.

The six, namely: Josephine Calajate, Ilocos Norte’s provincial treasurer; Encarnacion Gaor  and Genedine Jambaro, both working at the Provincial Treasurer’s Office;  Evangeline Tabulog, provincial budget officer;  Eden Battulayan, OIC-accountant;  and Pedro Agcaoili, chairman of the Bids and Awards Committee and the Provincial Planning and Development Office, have been detained at the Batasan since May 29.

Ilocos Norte Governor Imee Marcos has yet to appear before lawmakers. She has been invited twice to the hearings, but has failed to do so. 

The issue involved the purchase of 40 multicabs worth P18.6 million, five second-hand Hyundai buses worth P15.3 million, and 70 minitrucks costing P32.5 million.

 Meanwhile, the provincial government of Ilocos Norte has yet to prove that the purchase of the vehicles has benefited tobacco farmers in the province.

According to reports, documents show that Marcos’ stamp of approval was on all the documents pertaining to the cash advances done to acquire vehicles.

Unfortunately, she refuses to face Congress to explain and to attempt to clear her name.

For comments, e-mail at [email protected]