04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly not entirely obliterated. In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral or constituent units thereof. In fine, there is no power in the Constitution that can run riot. There is no power in the Constitution that is unbounded. There is no power in the Constitution that can be exercised if it will destroy the Constitution. For all powers in the Constitution are designed to preserve the Constitution. In other words, the President as Chief Executive can negotiate peace with the MILF but it is peace that will insure that our laws are faithfully executed. The President can seek peace with the MILF but without crossing the parameters of powers marked in the Constitution to separate the other branches of government to preserve our democracy. For even in times of war, our system of checks and balances cannot be infringed.[45] More so in times where the only danger that faces the State is the lesser danger of rebellion. Needless to stress, the power of the President to negotiate peace with the MILF is not plenary. While a considerable degree of flexibility and breadth is accorded to the peace negotiating panel, the latitude has its limits - the Constitution. The Constitution was ordained by the sovereign people and its postulates may not be employed as bargaining chips without their prior consent. V. The Constitution as Compact of the People The question may be asked: In the process of negotiating peace with the MILF, why cannot the Executive commit to do acts which are prohibited by the Constitution and seek their ratification later by its amendment or revision? Many philosophical perspectives have been advanced in reply to this question. Yet, no theory has been as influential, nor has been as authoritative, as the social contract theory,[46] articulated by John Locke, viz: For when any number of men have, by the consent of every individual, made a community, they have thereby made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority: for that which acts any community, being only the consent of the individuals of it, and it being necessary to that which is one body to move one way; it is necessary the body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority: or else it is impossible it should act or continue one body, one community, which the consent of every individual that united into it, agreed that it should; and so every one is bound by that consent to be concluded by the majority. And therefore we see, that in assemblies, empowered to act by positive laws, where no number is set by that positive law which empowers them, the act of the majority passes for the act of the whole, and of course determines, as having, by the law of nature and reason, the power of the whole.[47] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/47263 76/203