Comparative Analysis of Separation of Powers in Parliamentary and

Presidential Systems in relation to Corruption in the Philippines

By: Gian Carlo E. Miranda

The Dilemma: The Pork Barrel Controversy

In the third quarter of 2014, the government of the Philippines has conducted
investigations on the misallocation and funnelling of public funds to bogus
nongovernment organizations. It has led to the exposure of the wide scale
corruption orchestrated by prominent government officials in the legislature. This
began from the usage of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or locally
known as the pork barrel, where legislators had an unbridled discretion in utilizing
the money for projects that were not subject to audit, making it non-transparent and
vulnerable to corruption.
Since 1960s, it has become a political practice in the Philippines where each
member of the Congress and Senate would receive 2 million and 4 million dollars
respectively from the national budget, which supposedly be used for projects
benefiting their constituencies. This predicament shocked the nation upon discovery
that majority of projects were documented in paper but inexistent in reality.
Politicians in collusion with influential private individuals put up fake NGOs and
enlisted them as beneficiaries, plundered the money and made their transactions
appear legitimate.
Prior to this alarming scandal, this practice had been legitimated by a
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Philippine Constitution Association vs.
Enriquez,1 lauding the ingenious way of a decentralized approach to development.
The Court opined that the legislators are in a perfect vantage point to identify the
needs of their constituents. Hence, it was considered proper and practical that they
were in direct control of the money for what they deemed best for the public good.
However, in a more recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Belgica vs.
Executive Secretary,2 the usage of the pork barrel fund was declared
unconstitutional due to its violation of the principle of separation of powers.
This principle is a fundamental legal tenet and one of the cornerstones of a
democratic regime. It has been embedded in the Philippine jurisdiction since 1930s
as a result of adopting the American structure of government. In the Philippine
setup, the government is composed of the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary,
where powers are delineated by the Constitution and statutes. Each branch cannot
encroach upon the jurisdiction and wisdom of another. Every political unit is as
important as the other, possessing specialized functions that would complement
1
2

Philippine Constitutional Association vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994.
Belgica vs Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, Nov 19, 2013.

each other. However, one must think that it is inevitable that the demarcation lines
would be blurred in the political process, and intrusion into another domain is not
far from impossible.
Importance of Separation of Powers
The principle of separation of powers and its concepts of autonomy and
independence originated from the notion that the powers of government must be
divided to avoid concentration of these powers in any one branch. Further, the
division is hoped to avoid any single branch from lording its power over the other
branches or the citizenry. 3 To fully attain this purpose, the divided power must be
wielded by co-equal branches of government that are equally capable of
independent action in exercising their respective mandates. Thus, the absence of
independence would result in the inability of one branch of government to check the
arbitrary or self-interest assertions of the others.4
In the case of the pork barrel fund, the Court en banc elucidated that
legislators are inherently involved in the enactment of policies. But the involvement
extended in the post-enactment stage which required the holding of funds and
implementation of projects, and is tantamount to an encroachment on the function
of the executive. With this so-called development fund, a Congressman can
simply bypass the local development council and initiate projects on his own, and
even take sole credit for its execution. Indeed, this project identification has not only
contributed little to the overall development of the district, but has even contributed
to "further weakening infrastructure planning and coordination efforts of the
government."5 Thus, the violation of the principle of separation of powers in this
incident poses a great dilemma, one must surmise whether assuming the function
of another political unit is practical or chaotic.
Comparative Look: Presidential vs. Parliamentary
In other countries adhering to a Westminster parliamentary form of
government such as UK, Singapore, Australia, and other common law countries,
there is considerably no strict separation of powers primarily because of the merger
of the executive and the legislative6.

Re: COA Opinion on the Computation of the Appraised Value of the Properties Purchased by
the Retired Chief/Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, A.M. No. 11-7-10-SC, July 31,
2012, 678 SCRA 1, 9-10, citing Carl Baar, Separate But Subservient: Court Budgeting In The
American States 149-52 (1975), cited in Jeffrey Jackson, Judicial Independence, Adequate
Court Funding, and Inherent Judicial Powers, 52 Md. L. Rev. 217 (1993).
4
Jeffrey Jackson, Judicial Independence, Adequate Court Funding, and Inherent Judicial
Powers, 52 Md. L. Rev. 217 (1993).
5
Id. at 2.
6
Ronald J Krotoszynski, The separation of legislative and executive powers in Tom
Ginsburg, Rosalind
Dixon (eds) Comparative Constitutional Law, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2011, p 234

In the UK, the executive and legislature are closely intertwined. The Prime
Minister and a majority of his ministers are members of Parliament and sit in the
House of Commons.7 In Australia, the executive and the judiciary overlap. For
example, the Prime Minister and ministers are part of the Executive and the
Parliament. The members of the High Court, the Prime Minister and ministers are
officially appointed by the Governor-General, who is part of the Parliament and the
Executive.8 While in Singapore, the Ministers from the Cabinet are also selected
from the members of the Parliament in order to assist the Ministers in government
operations.9
By contrast in the Philippines and the United States, having a presidential
type of government, presupposes a clearer division of power. The executive function
is only vested upon the President, and the legislature cannot meddle with the affairs
of the executive, except for some constitutionally recognized exceptions. The
President cannot be a member of the legislature, and is elected separately from
congressional elections.10
According to recent studies, the fusion of the executive and legislative in
parliamentary systems has predominantly produced great political outcomes. 11 In
principle, there is less separation of powers which allows the parliament to actualize
their government goals without fear of deadlock brought about by political
differences. But in the Philippines, such fusion where the legislature is involved in
executive work has given the members of the Congress more leverage in
misappropriating the public funds. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that studies
claim that parliamentary systems are more decentralized, wherein a lesser
separation of powers was proven productive. But such paradigm is not true for the
case of the Philippines.
Separation of Powers and Corruption
The ultimate goal of separation of powers is to ensure a mechanism of checks
and balances. According to Thomas Jefferson, the concentration of power in a single
political branch is precisely the definition of a despotic government. 12 Thus, it is an
essential safeguard to prevent absolutism and a complete disregard for the rule of
law. However, it is not a guarantee in itself that this demarcation will lead to
development and lesser corruption.
7

Benwell, Richard and Gay, Oonagh. Separation of Powers,

file:///C:/Users/new%20user/Downloads/sn06053%20(1).pdf.
8
Separation
of
Powers:
Parliament,
Executive
and
Judiciary,
http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/separation-of-powers.html.
9
Singapore
Legal
System,
http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-ofsingapore/overview/chapter-1.
10
Id. at 7.
11
Bagehot, Oxford University Press , the English Constitution 1978
12
Alvey, John Ralph, The Separation of Powers in Australia: Issues for the States,
http://www.cpahq.org/cpahq/cpadocs/The%20Separation%20of%20Powers%20in
%20Australia%20Issues%20for%20the%20States.pdf, (December 2005).

It is noteworthy to ascertain whether a separation of powers in its strict sense

would imply a direct causal relationship with corruption, considering the type of
government and political infrastructures. In a study conducted by scholars from
Harvard, a divided presidential government in America had been associated with
lower corruption, providing a more stringent system of checks and balances. 13
However, a study made by the World Bank contends that countries with
parliamentary governments are less prone to corruption. 14 It is characterized by its
mature and stable political party system as opposed to a personality-driven politics
and fragmentation in a presidential system. 15 In a parliament, there is unity and
singleness in terms of their political agenda, which is often lacking in a presidential
structure because of political differences. 16 However, it must be taken into account
that institutional separation of powers does not always imply a functional separation
of powers if institutional actors can collude, leading to a serious degree of
corruption.17
In conclusion, the case of separation of powers, decentralization and
corruption is peculiar to the Philippines. It is true that decentralization could be a
panacea to various institutional illnesses. Giving the legislators the power to
manage public funds can be gleaned as decentralization, but the fusion of executive
and legislative resulting to decentralization can have different effects on the level of
corruption. It is a double edged sword policy mechanism, for it can either promote
collusion and patronage politics or improve efficiency by expediting the operations
of the government.18 But the political culture of the Philippines must also be taken
into account where corruption is systemic, and that structural change of
government will not automatically create a significant development.

13

Alt, James and Lassen, David, Political and Judicial Checks and Balances in Corruption:
Evidence
from
American
State
Governments,
http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/gov2126/files/altlassen.pdf, (March 2008).
14
Stapenhurst, Rick et. al, World Bank Institute Development Studies: The Role of
Parliament
in
Curbing
Corruption,
ed.
http://wbi.worldbank.org/wbi/Data/wbi/wbicms/files/drupal-acquia/wbi/The%20Role%20of
%20Parliment%20in%20Curbing%20Corruption.pdf,(2006).
15
Neudorfer, Benjamin and Newdorfer, Natasha, Decentralization and Political Corruption in
Presidential
and
Parliamentary
Government,
http://www.falw.vu/~mlg/papers/Neudorfer_decentralization%20political%20system
%20corruption.pdf, (2014).
16
Id.
17
Id. at 13.
18
Id. at 14.