The Never Ending Democratization of the Philippines 109 The Practice of Separation of Powers and System of Checks and Balances in the Philippines The adverse effects of the strong President on horizontal accountability are manifested in at least three ways—the wiping out of accountability as when the President abolishes the legislature and places the judiciary under his control; or in ordinary times, the weakening of horizontal accountability through the encroachment of the authority of the other branches of government; and the inability to check the President's employment of delegative authority likely resulting to corrupt practices. These adverse effects on accountability are shown in the actual practice of the President's military power, power over the budget, and power to appoint. A. Wiping Out Horizontal Accountability Executive Coup/Constitutional Authoritarianism The unilateral proclamation of Martial Law by Marcos under the military power of the President in case of invasion, insurrection and rebellion or danger thereof, is the clearest instance why the vast powers of the President is a threat to horizontal accountability. This power allowed Marcos to rule by decree. This does not only encroach on the powers of Congress but actually added the legislative power to the already formidable powers of the executive. As we all know, the horizontal accountability meant to be established by the constitutional structure of check and balance collapsed in September 1972. With one stroke of the pen through Proclamation 1081, Ferdinand Marcos ruled the Philippines by decree during the martial law period from 1972 to 1986. In a series of cases brought before the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of Proclamation 1081 which placed the entire country under martial law, the court ruled that it is a political question, and hence outside the highest court's power of judicial review (Aquino v. Enrile, G.R. No. L-35546, 59 SCRA 183). While there were separate opinions written by the justices of the high court, majority of them emphasized the political nature of the President's decision to declare martial law. The high court argued that its decision is based on American jurisprudence, and the principles of international law. In fact a number of justices even acknowledged that the reasons stated in the proclamation are factual and of common knowledge. In this instance, the Supreme Court's ruling conferred legitimacy to the President's rule by decree. To retired Associate Justice Isagani Cruz, the imposition of martial law began the most shameful period in the history of the Supreme Court (cited by Atienza and Baylon in Morada and Encarnacion Tadem 2006: 350).