On separation of powers and checks and balances
Under our system of government, while public officials are entrusted to serve the people and run the government, defend the State and protect the nation, there are three branches of government. Each branch has a defined purpose.The legislative enacts the laws of the land. The executive implements the laws. The judiciary interprets the law and curbs grave abuses of discretions if and when there are acts and omissions that are out of bounds. The three branches are supposed to be equal but separate. One is not allowed to interfere with the others. Thus, the executive should not legislate nor adjudicate. Congress should keep away from investigations and adjudications. And the judiciary should not legislate. The executive should not violate the independence of the judiciary.
But while equal and separate, the three can check and balance each other. When the president makes an appointment with a Cabinet rank, to any of the agencies of government, or name an ambassador, among others, Congress, through the Commission on Disappointments may rebuff him by rejecting his appointees. This was done five times already under the Duterte administration, in the caseof PerfectoYasayof DFA,GinaLopezof DENR,JudyTaguiwalo of DSWD, Rafael Mariano of DAR, and Paulyn Ubial of DOH. The president's budget can be changed by Congress. The president's acts can be declared unconstitutional by the courts. The treaties signed by the president can be rejected by the Senate.These powers are called checks and balances.
If the Supreme Court appears to be oppressive to Congress by, say for instance, abusing its administration of justice, then Congress may reduce its budget to one thousand pesos. It used to be one peso, as a sign of the legislative power over the purse. The president also has appointing powers over all justices and judges. But his presidential powers of appointment of justices is subject to check by the Judicial and Bar Council, a body composed of members of the judiciary and the legislature with some members representing the academe and the legal profession. Congress also may check on the judiciary by amending a law that the courts may use in deciding cases.And the president has veto power over all legislative enactments. But Congress may override his veto. And the courts can annul executive and legislative acts, and can declare laws unconstitutional.
The principle of checks and balance is really intended to weaken each other because too much power corrupts. The president is weakened by the powers of the courts to annul his act, and the power of Congress to impeach him. Congress is weakened by the presidential prerogative to veto its enactments, but the president is weakened if the legislative does not give him a budget to finance his operations. We can thus conclude that these principles are based on the premise that officials cannot really be trusted. There is a need to neutralize their authority and to negate their many prerogatives.
And when government oppresses the people that they are sworn to serve and protect, the ultimate check and balance is a peoples' revolution. That is withdrawal of trust of the people from the government. And that is an inherent and basic right.