Previous Story
Understanding Separation of Powers
|
Posted on Apr 26 2002
The Issue: It’s vital that all must adhere to the concept of
separation of powers. It deals with three equal branches of
government.
Perhaps it was an oversight on the part of the administration to venture into violating the independency of the other two equal branches of government by reducing their budget unilaterally.
It brings into focus the concept of separation of powers, meaning three equal branches of government, therefore, the decision to cut the budget of the other two branches being constitutionally questionable.
The opinion of the Attorney General is just that–a legal opinion. That it is an opinion fails to alter the very principle inherent under the US Constitution on separation of powers.
The appropriate approach–so that no one branch infringes upon the independency of the other–is for the administration to send out a circular requesting that each branch reduces budgetary expenditure by a certain percent.
It is prerogative of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the presiding officers of the legislature to take heed of the request of paring down expenses under approved budget. Normally, no one would challenge such request especially at a juncture when revenue generation continues to decline.
If the issue pertains to preparing an impending fiscal year’s budget, then, again the appropriate protocol is a circular to the other two branches to pare down their expenses.
It isn’t a matter of fairness–equal cuts across the board–as much as it is protecting the integrity and sanctity of the concept of separation of powers.
The proceeding isn’t a criticism as much as it is an observation that all three equal branches of government must honor.
