Separation and balance of government power

Considering that the case is now "sub-judice," we are not going to comment on the merits now pending before the Supreme Court on the question of the Marcos burial. But we shall attempt to discuss the legal framework of government in the Philippines.

The triumvirate among the executive, the legislative and the judiciary in our present system of government, if properly led and managed, can provide a state of equilibrium in the whole nation. When overplayed, such equilibrium may result to an impasse or even a standstill. There shall be a state of suspended animation, but there shall be no progress. The nation cannot move on. The national leadership cannot act with a sense of urgency, even when the country is being besieged by a grave and imminent danger like the drug crisis.

The simple matter of burying the dead has become a national controversy that divides the nation. In other countries, this thing cannot happen. The incumbent president has made a decisive judgment, that is, to allow the burial of a former president and a former soldier in a place euphemistically named "Libingan Ng Mga Bayani," and no less than six petitions had been filed with the Supreme Court questioning the said presidential judgment. Well, we do not begrudge the highest court of the land for giving due course to the petition, instead of dismissing them outright. We do not even question its ruling to issue an order on "Status Quo Ante." Those are the judicial prerogatives of the High Court. What bewilders us is the system that allows the expanded power of judicial review even on highly political questions.

When our laws allow almost all presidential actions and decisions to be subject to petitions for "certiorari, prohibitions, or mandamus" there arises a resultant danger that the chief executive may be prevented from acting immediately to address a crisis like the drug problem, or even a natural calamity or man-made disaster. The power of the Supreme Court to review, revise, reverse, modify or alter decisions of lower courts, and administrative bodies performing quasi-judicial functions cannot be denied. But this should be limited to decisions that are "quasi-judicial." It should not embrace purely executive action and political decisions. To disable the head of state to act with would be to prejudice the whole nation.

Also, these seemingly endless Senate and Congressional investigations, purportedly in aid of legislation, is also trying to demoralize the law enforcement authorities. What the De Lima Committee is doing to the police and the military, is practically giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the state, which are the drug syndicates.

Instead of commending the police and the military for giving impetus to the war against drugs, the senators and congressmen are wasting the time of the police in investigations "ad nauseam."

Empirical data show that no legislation was ever enacted out of these obnoxious investigations.

The three branches of government should help each other, complement each other and not immobilize each other. The legislative makes laws. The executive execute the laws. The judiciary interprets the laws. The moment one branch starts to derail the functions of the others, that is no longer balance of power. That is a violation of separation of powers.

At the end of the day, the nation suffers. The people are prejudiced, and the government becomes the antithesis of the sovereign will of the people.

What matters most is a government that works for the people. Anything less and anything more will hurt the people and damage the nation. The welfare of the people is what matters most.