What is the concept of separation of powers?

There are three branches of the government legislative, executive and judicial. Each department of the
government has exclusive cognizance of the 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 Constitutionintended 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.

What is congressional oversight?
Broadly defined, the power of oversight embraces all activities undertaken by Congress to enhance its
understanding of and influence over the implementation of legislation it has enacted. Clearly, oversight concerns
post-enactment measures undertaken by Congress: (a) to monitor bureaucratic compliance with program
objectives, (b) to determine whether agencies are properly administered, (c) to eliminate executive waste and
dishonesty, (d) to prevent executive usurpation of legislative authority, and (e) to assess executive conformity
with the congressional perception of public interest. The power of oversight has been held to be intrinsic in the
grant of legislative power itself and integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of
government.
What are the categories of congressional oversight functions?
The acts done by Congress purportedly in the exercise of its oversight powers may be divided into three
categories, namely: (1) supervision, which connotes a continuing and informed awareness on the part of a
congressional committee regarding executive operations in a given administrative area; (2)scrutiny, primarily
intended to determine economy and efficiency of the operation of government activities, exercised through
budget hearings, the question hour and the power of confirmation; and (2) investigation, which is also known as
the inquiry in aid of legislation.

What is the basis the power of inquiry in aid of legislation?
The Congressional power of inquiry is expressly recognized in Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution:
SECTION 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries
in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or
affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
Even without this express Constitutional provision, the power of inquiry is inherent in the power to legislate. The
power of inquiry, with process to enforce it, is grounded on the necessity of information in the legislative process.
If the information possessed by executive officials on the operation of their offices is necessary for wise legislation
on that subject, by parity of reasoning, Congress has the right to that information and the power to compel the
disclosure thereof.
Why is inquiry in aid of legislation important under the separation of powers?
Under the separation of powers, Congress has the right to obtain information from any source even from
officials of departments and agencies in the executive branch. It is this very separation that makes the
congressional right to obtain information from the executive so essential, if the functions of the Congress as the
elected representatives of the people are adequately to be carried out.
Is the Supreme Court covered by the Congressional power of inquiry?
No. Members of the Supreme Court are exempt from this power of inquiry on the basis not only of separation of
powers but also on the fiscal autonomy and the constitutional independence of the judiciary.
Is the power of inquiry subject to judicial review?
Yes. It may be subjected to judicial review pursuant to the Supreme Courts certiorari powers under Section
1, Article VIII of the Constitution. Since the right of Congress to conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation is, in
theory, no less susceptible to abuse than executive or judicial power.
Is the President covered by the power of inquiry?
No. The President, on whom executive power is vested, is beyond the reach of Congress, except through the power
of impeachment. It is based on the Presidents position as the highest official of the executive branch, and the due
respect accorded to a co-equal branch of government which is sanctioned by a long-standing custom.
Does the power to inquire extend to officials in the executive branch?
Yes. The power of inquiry is broad enough to cover officials of the executive branch. The power of inquiry is co-
extensive with the power to legislate. The matters which may be a proper subject of legislation and those which
may be a proper subject of investigation are one. It follows that the operation of government, being a legitimate
subject for legislation, is a proper subject for investigation. Since Congress has authority to inquire into the
operations of the executive branch, it would be incongruous to hold that the power of inquiry does not extend to
executive officials who are the most familiar with and informed on executive operations.
Are there limitations to this power? If yes, what are these limitations?
Yes. As now contained in the 1987 Constitution (Section 21, Article VI), the power of Congress to investigate is
circumscribed by three limitations, namely: (a) it must be in aid of its legislative functions, (b) it must be
conducted in accordance with duly published rules of procedure, and (c) the persons appearing therein are
afforded their constitutional rights, including the right to be represented by counsel and the right against self-
incrimination.
In addition, even where the inquiry is in aid of legislation, there are still recognized exemptions to the power of
inquiry, which exemptions fall under the rubric of executive privilege.
What is executive privilege?
Executive privilege is not a clear or unitary concept, although it has been defined as the power of the
Government to withhold information from the public, the courts, and the Congress or the right of the
President and high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and
ultimately the public.
Does executive privilege refer to persons?
No. Executive privilege is properly invoked in relation to specific categories of information and not to categories of
persons. Executive privilege, whether asserted against Congress, the courts, or the public, is recognized only in
relation to certain types of information of a sensitive character.
What matters are covered by executive privilege?
The matters covered under executive privilege include: (1) Information between inter-government
agencies prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements; (2) Presidential conversations,
correspondences, and discussions in closed-door Cabinet meetings; and (3) Matters affecting national security and
public order.
How is this invoked?
When an official is being summoned by Congress on a matter which, in his own judgment, might be covered by
executive privilege, he must be afforded reasonable time to inform the President or the Executive Secretary of the
possible need for invoking the privilege. This is necessary in order to provide the President or the Executive
Secretary with fair opportunity to consider whether the matter indeed calls for a claim of executive privilege. If,
after the lapse of that reasonable time, neither the President nor the Executive Secretary invokes the privilege,
Congress is no longer bound to respect the failure of the official to appear before Congress and may then opt to
avail of the necessary legal means to compel his appearance.
Is an implied claim of executive privilege valid?
No. A claim of privilege, being a claim of exemption from an obligation to disclose information, must be clearly
asserted. An implied claim of privilege is invalid per se. The validity of claims of privilege must be assessed on a
case to case basis, examining the ground invoked therefore, and the particular circumstances surrounding it.
What is the Question Hour?
In the context of a parliamentary system of government, the question hour is a period of confrontation initiated by
Parliament to hold the Prime Minister and the other ministers accountable for their acts and the operation of the
government, corresponding to what is known in Britain as the question period. The framers of the 1987
Constitution removed the mandatory nature of such appearance during the question hour in the present
Constitution so as to conform more fully to a system of separation of powers. This is provided in Article VI, Section
22 of the Constitution:
SECTION 22. The heads of departments may upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon
the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House
on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate
or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance.
Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the security
of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be
conducted in executive session.
Is the power of inquiry in aid of legislation the same as the Question Hour?
No. Section 21 (inquiry in aid of legislation) and Section 22 (question hour) of Article VI of the Constitution are
closely related and complementary to each other, but they do not pertain to the same power of Congress. One
specifically relates to the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, the aim of which is to elicit information
that may be used for legislation, while the other pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the objective
of which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress oversight function. While attendance was meant to be
discretionary in the question hour, it was compulsory in inquiries in aid of legislation.
If a person is cited in contempt and imprisoned in relation to the Congressional exercise of inquiry in aid of
legislation, how long will the imprisonment last?
This is tackled by the Supreme Court in Arnault vs. Nazareno, where the petitioner argued that the Senate lacks
authority to commit him for contempt for a term beyond its period of legislative session. According to the Supreme
Court:
That investigation has not been completed because of the refusal of the petitioner as a witness to answer certain
questions pertinent to the subject of the inquiry. The Senate has empowered the committee to continue the
investigation during the recess. By refusing to answer the questions, the witness has obstructed the performance
by the Senate of its legislative function, and the Senate has the power to remove the obstruction by compelling
the witness to answer the questions thru restraint of his liberty until he shall have answered them. That power
subsists as long as the Senate, which is a continuing body, persists in performing the particular legislative function
involved. To hold that it may punish the witness for contempt only during the session in which investigation was
begun, would be to recognize the right of the Senate to perform its function but at the same time to deny to it an
essential and appropriate means for its performance. Aside from this, if we should hold that the power to punish
for contempt terminates upon the adjournment of the session, the Senate would have to resume the investigation
at the next and succeeding sessions and repeat the contempt proceedings against the witness until the
investigation is completed-an absurd, unnecessary, and vexatious procedure, which should be avoided.
As against the foregoing conclusion it is argued for the petitioner that the power may be abusively and
oppressively exerted by the Senate which might keep the witness in prison for life. But we must assume that the
Senate will not be disposed to exert the power beyond its proper bounds. And if, contrary to this assumption,
proper limitations are disregarded, the portals of this Court are always open to those whose rights might thus be
transgressed.
1. The harmonious blending of common law and civil law in one legal system .The Philippine legal system today is
a unique blending of common law and civil law principles. Its public law is substantially patterned after common
law doctrines, while its private law follows the civil law tradition of Spain. This unusual mixture of common law
and civil law in one legal system is the inevitable result of its colonial history. The Philippines was a colony of
Spain for over three hundred years and was under the American colonial regime for about half a century.
From the beginning of the Spanish era up to 1898 when the Americans defeated the Spaniards in the Spanish-
American war, the civil law system of Spain was adopted in the Philippines. From December 10, 1898, when Spain
ceded the Philippines under the Treaty of Paris to the United States up to July 4, 1946 when the U.S. colonial
regime formally ended, common law or public law principles in the United States were engrafted in the Philippine
legal system. Thus, the Philippine private law at present such as the law on persons and family relations,
obligations and contracts, and succession, among others, are substantially patterned after the civil code of Spain.
On the other hand, its public law, notably constitutional law, administrative law, and the law on public offices,
among others, are to a great extent based on American law.
2. The doctrine of Separation of powers between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government
It is noteworthy that the Constitution of the Philippines bears the imprint of certain dominant principles embedded
in the U.S. Federal Constitution. Starting with the 1935 Constitution to the 1973 Constitution, and the current
Constitution of 1987, the concept of separation of powers between the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial
branches of government has been consistently recognized. The doctrine of separation of powers is designed to
prevent tyranny by preventing the concentration of the sovereign powers of state in one body. It is in harmony
with the first principle enshrined in Section 1 Article III of the present Constitution which expressly recognizes that
the Philippines is a democratic and republican State.
3. The power of Judicial Review and the Bill of Rights in the Constitution The important role of judicial review in
the Philippine constitutional or legal system cannot be overemphasized. In fact, under the present constitution,
the IALS Conference Learning from Each Other: Enriching the Law School Curriculum in an Interrelated World
certiorari power of the Supreme Court has been expanded by Section 1 Article 8 thereof to include the
determination 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.
Pursuant to the establishment of a democratic and republican state where sovereignty resides in the people, the
philippine constitution devotes an entire article on a Bill of Rights. Among the rights guaranteed by Article III are
the following: 1) The right to due process, 2) the right to equal protection of the laws, 3) the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures, 4) privacy of communication, 5) freedom of speech, of expression, or of the
press, 6) the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances 7) the free
exercise of religious worship, 8) the liberty of abode and the right to travel, 9) the right to information on matters
of public concern, 10) the right to form unions, associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law, 11) the
right to counsel, 12) the privilege against selfincrimination, 13) the right to bail, 14) the right to be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved, 15) the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, 16)the right against double
jeopardy, and 17) the right against ex post facto law or bills of attainder.
Over the years the Philippine Supreme Court has rendered leading or landmark decisions interpreting and
expounding on the meaning and scope of the constitutionally guaranteed rights. Quite a number of these decisions
were influenced by relevant U.S. Supreme Court decisions on Constitutional Law. Today, it can be fairly said that
the Philippine Supreme Court has, to its credit, established a consistent record of enhancing and protecting the
constitutionally guaranteed rights through the exercise of its power of Judicial review.