Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr.

1/2014

ASPECTE PRIVIND ORIGINEA ASPECTS REGARDING THE

SEPARAIEI PUTERILOR N STAT
NTR-O ABORDARE ISTORICO-
JURIDIC
Elena - Roxana DOBRIOIU*
Abstract: Acest studiu analizeaz succint,
dintr-o dubl abordare, istoric i juridic, unul din
cele mai importante principii ale statului de drept,
care trebuie s se regsesc n orice democraie from a double approach, both historical and juridical,
constituional, ca un mecanism n asigurarea unui
echilibru ntre puterile statului, din punct de vedere a
originii teoriei separaiei puterilor n stat.
Principiul separaiei puterilor i-a fcut loc
n gndirea umanitii atunci cnd s-a simit nevoia the origins of the theory of powers separation inside
instaurrii regimului constituional. n momentul n
care, o dat cu regimul constituional, s-a ajuns la
ideea statului de drept, principiul separaiei puterilor
a fost considerat ca fiind singurul instrument capabil
s-l realizeze.
Cuvinte cheie: putere, separaie, originea
separaiei puterilor, stat democratic.
ORIGINS OF THE POWERS
SEPARATION INSIDE THE STATE
IN A HISTORICAL-JURIDICAL
APPROACH
Elena - Roxana DOBRIOIU**
Abstract: This study analyses succinctly,
one of the most important principles of the lawful
state which should be found in any constitutional
democracy, as a mechanism in providing balance
between the powers of the state, from the viewpoint of
the state.
The principle of powers separation inside
the state found its place in the human thinking when
the need to install the constitutional system appeared.
the moment when, at the same time with the
constitutional system, we got to the idea of the legal
state, the principle of powers separation was
considered as the only instrument able to accomplish
it.

Key words: power, separation, origins of

1. Introducere powers separation, democratic state.

Separaia puterilor n stat1 reprezint

unul din principiile fundamentale ale
dreptului constituional i una din premisele
statului de drept. Principiul este strns legat
de ideea unui regim reprezentativ n care
este eliminat pericolul tiraniei i al
ngrdirii i nclcrii abuzive a drepturilor
i libertilor individuale2. El s-a conturat n
viaa statului n msura n care s-a simit
nevoia instaurrii regimului constituional3.
Acest coninut al noiunii de
separaie a puterilor s-a conturat dup un
lung proces istoric i doctrinar:
- principiul separaiei puterilor n
1. Introduction
The powers separation inside37 the
state represents one of the basic principles of
constitutional law and one of the premises of
the lawful state. The principle is tightly
connected to the idea of a representative
system where the danger of tyranny and of
bordering and abusively disrespecting the
individual rights and liberties is removed38. It
was outlined in the state life when the need
to install the constitutional system
appeared39.

*
Lect. univ. dr., Facultatea de Relaii Internaionale, Drept i tiine Administrative, Universitatea Constantin
Brncui din Tg-Jiu
**
University Lecturer, PhD, Faculty of International Relations, Law and Administrative Sciences Constantin
Brncui University of Tg-Jiu

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2014
83
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2014
stat s-a prefigurat nc n antichitate, n
special n eforturile gnditorilor politici ai
acelor vremuri, de aflare a secretului unui
bun guvernmnt.
- n perioada evului mediu, ideea
separaiei puterilor n stat a fost privit ca
un mijloc de limitare a puterii arbitrare a
efului statului, putere specific regimului
absolutist.
- teoretizarea separaiei puterilor n
stat ca principiu fundamental n
organizarea statal modern a fost fcut
de John Locke, Montesquieu i Rousseau.
n scrierile istoricilor i juritilor
principiul separaiei puterilor n stat nu a
constituit o tem predilect, ci doar referin
n analiza proceselor complexe din ultimele
dou secole ale fixrii societii romneti
n matca modernitii, din perspectiv
interpretativ bazat pe dezvoltarea general
a structurilor statale democratice.
Principiului separaiei puterilor n
stat i-au fost necesare mai multe decenii
pn cnd, de la proiecte imperfecte a
devenit principiu statornic al organizrii de
stat moderne.
Odat impus n istorie, el a devenit
pn n zilele noastre, garania meninerii
democraiei, dup dobndirea i exercitarea
puterii populare prin alegeri.
2. Succint abordare istorico-juridic
privind originea teoriei separaiei
puterilor n stat.
Orice proces de conducere social-
politic desfurat n vederea realizrii unor
obiective de interes general sau prin care se
urmrete binele comun al naiunii,
presupune specializarea activitilor statale,
adic stabilirea unor organisme nvestite cu
autoritate, care s desfoare nentrerupt i
potrivit anumitor metode, practici ori reguli,
acelai tip de activiti.
Sub aspect terminologic, doctrina a
atribuit teoriei separaiei puterilor dou
sensuri4:
Un prim sens (originar) fiind cel al
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2014
This content of the powers
separation notion was outlined after a long
historical and doctrinarian process:
- the principle of powers separation
inside the state was foreshadowed in
antiquity, especially by the efforts of the
political thinkers of those times, of finding
the secret of a good government.
- during the Middle age, the idea of
powers separation inside the state was seen
as a means of limiting the arbitrary power of
the state leader, a power specific to the
absolutist system.
- the theorisation of powers separation
inside the state as a basic principle in the
modern state organization was achieved by
John Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau.
In the writings of historians and
lawyers, the principle of powers separation
inside the state did not constitute a favourite
theme, but only a reference in the analysis of
the complex process from the last two
centuries of establishing the Romanian
society in the modernity matrix, from the
interpretative perspective based on the
general development of the democratic state
structures.
The principle of powers separation
inside the state needed several decades until,
from imperfect projects, it became a steady
principle of the modern state organization.
Once it was imposed in history, it has
become the guarantee of maintaining the
democracy, after gaining and exerting the
popular power by elections.
2. A succinct historical-juridical
approach regarding the origins of
the theory of powers separation
inside the state.
Any process of social-political
government developed in order to achieve
certain purposes of general interest or
purposes following the common good of the
nation, supposes the specialization of the
state activities, namely the establishment of
certain authority organisms that could
develop the same type of activities, in a
84
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2014
formei de organizare politic nedespotic,
n care toate puterile nu sunt atribuite
aceleiai persoane sau autoriti (unui
deintor unic);
Cel de-al doilea sens evideniat de
doctrina modern, se refer la necesitatea
separaiei i independenei puterilor, a
autoritilor specializate ale statului, n
scopul asigurrii echilibrului ntre ele,
prentmpinrii unei guvernri despotice i
implicit, pentru garantarea drepturilor i
libertilor individuale.
De-a lungul timpului, principiul
separaiei puterilor, dei a cunoscut n
aplicarea sa o practic de peste dou secole,
acesta nu s-a manifestat ntr-o form pur
nici n democraiile avansate.
Fie c e vorba de o separaie
flexibil sau rigid a puterilor, de anumite
excepii n ambele situaii (specifice unui
regim sau altul), principiul separaiei
puterilor constituie principalul mecanism
n asigurarea unui echilibru i de
mpiedicare spre un regim dictatorial.
Aprut n secolul Luminilor aceast
teorie a separaiei puterilor n stat a fost
ndreptat mpotriva obscurantismului
feudal i a nchistrii medievale, mpotriva
abuzului de putere. Aceast teorie a fost
conceput ca o reacie mpotriva monarhiei
absolute, considerat de drept divin, form
de guvernmnt n care regele concentra n
minile sale puterea suprem, considerndu-
se ca o personificare a statutului de unde i
celebra formul a regelui Ludovic al XIV-
lea statul sunt eu (L'Etat c'est moi) 5.
Adagiul latin, quod placuit principi,
legis habet vigorem, ceea ce-i place
principelui aceia are putere de lege,
incontestabil c nu poate s consfineasc,
acolo unde se aplic, o stare social n care
omenirea s poat s se dezvolte i s
progreseze, afirm profesorul Paul
Negulescu. 6
O societate, o naiune poate s se
dezvolte numai dac atribuiile eseniale ale
statului sunt ncredinate unor persoane
diferite, care s nu depind unele de altele,
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2014
continuous way, adequately to certain
methods, practices or rules.
Terminologically, the doctrine assigned
two meanings to the theory of powers
separation40:
the first meaning (the original one)
is the one of the form of non-despotic
political organization, where all the powers
are not assigned to the same person or
authority ( to a unique owner);
the second meaning spotlighted by the
modern doctrine refers to the necessity of
powers separation and independence, of the
specialized state authorities, in order to
provide balance between them, to prevent a
despotic government and implicitly, to
guarantee the individual rights and liberties.
Across the time, the principle of
powers separation, even if it has been
applied for more than two centuries, was not
manifested purely in the advanced
democracies.
Either it is about a flexible separation
of the powers or it is about a rigid one, from
certain exceptions in both of the situations
(specific to a system or to another one), the
principle of powers separation constitutes
the main mechanism for providing balance
and for stopping a dictatorial system.
Appeared during the Enlightenment,
this theory of powers separation inside the
state was directed against feudal
obscurantism and medieval rut, against the
power abuse. This theory was conceived as a
reaction against the absolute monarchy,
considered by the divine right as a form of
government where the king concentrated the
supreme power in his hands, considering
himself as a personification of the status,
whence Louis XIVs famous statement I am
the state (L'Etat c'est moi)41.
The Latin adage, quod placuit principi,
legis habet vigorem, what pleases the prince
has the force of law, incontestably cannot
consecrate, where it is applied, a social status
where humanity may develop and progress,
states professor Paul Negulescu.42
A society, a nation may develop only if
85
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2014
s fie separate, independente i s se
controleze reciproc.
Sparaia provine din lat. Separatio,
onis i este clar (deosebire, desprire,
separaiune, mprire), iar statul este un
organism social complex aprut la un
moment dat n istorie stimulnd condiia
creaiei, termenul de putere conine mai
mult aproximare.
Prin conceptul de putere se
desemneaz capacitatea de a impune, pe
calea unor manifestri de voin unilaterale
i n absena oricrei subordonri fa de
vreo autoritate superioar sau concurent,
msuri obligatorii, susceptibile de a fi parte
a respectului general cu ajutorul forei de
constrngere constituit n acest scop7.
Astfel ntr-o instituie ori organizaie,
raportul de dominaie este exprimat prin
hotrrea consiliului de administraie, prin
hotrrea senatului (la universiti); n
societate prin hotrrea puterilor statale
(Guvern, Parlament), etc. prin urmare,
puterea este mijlocul prin care se menine
ordinea pentru asigurarea unui scop comun.
Ea poate fi exercitat doar n msura n care
este legitim, iar deciziile luate exprim
voina general. Un act normativ al puterii
publice nu este legitim prin el nsui, prin
simplu fapt c eman de la o autoritate, ci
numai dac, prin coninutul i forma lui este
legal, conform regulii de drept8.
ntr-o alt definiie, prin putere se
nelege puterea organizat a unui grup care
se exprim n capacitatea acestuia de a
exprima voina naiunii i a asigura
realizarea acesteia prin mijloace specifice
organizrii societii n stat, deinnd n
acest scop monopolul crerii i aplicrii
dreptului.9
Puterea de stat exprim ideea c pe
un anumit teritoriu, un sistem de organe,
exercit funciile legislativ, executiv i
judectoreasc 10, n condiii care exclud
subordonarea lui fa de o anumit
autoritate superioar sau concurent. 11
Plecnd de la importana
constituional i rolul lui ntr-un stat de
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2014
the essential attributions of the state are
entrusted to different persons who should not
depend one on another, they should be
separate, independent and they should
control each other.
Separation comes from the Latin
Separatio, onis and it is clear (difference,
disjunction, secession, division), and the
state is a complex social organism appeared
at a certain point in history by stimulating the
creation condition, the power term contains
more approximation.
The power concept assigns the capacity
to impose, by means of unilateral will
manifestations and in the absence of any
subordination to any higher or competitive
authority, mandatory measures susceptible of
being part of the general respect by means of
the constraining force constituted in this
purpose43. Thus, in an institution or
organization, the domination report is
expressed by the decision of the
administrative council, by the senate decision
(for universities); in the society, by the
decision of the state powers (Government,
Parliament), etc. as a consequence, power is
the means by which the order is maintained
in order to provide a common purpose. It
may be exerted only as long as it is legal, and
the made decisions express the general will.
A normative document of the public power is
not legal by itself, by simply emanating from
an authority, but only if, by its content and
form, it is legal according to the lawful
rule44.
In another definition, power means the
organized power of a group expressed in its
capacity of expressing the nation will and of
providing its achievement by means specific
to the society organization inside the state,
by owning the monopole of creating and
applying law in this purpose.45
The state power expresses the idea
according to which, on a certain territory, a
system of organs exerts the legislative
function, the executive one and the judicial
one46, in conditions which exclude its
subordination to a certain higher or
86
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2014
drept, principiul separaiei puterilor n stat a
devenit o teorie a democraiilor liberale i
garania esenial a securitii individului n
raporturile sale cu puterea. 12
Aprut n secolul Luminilor aceast
teorie a separaiei puterilor n stat a fost
ndreptat mpotriva obscurantismului
feudal i a nchistrii medievale, mpotriva
abuzului de putere. Aceast teorie a fost
conceput ca o reacie mpotriva monarhiei
absolute, considerat de drept divin, form
de guvernmnt n care regele concentra n
minile sale puterea suprem, considerndu-
se ca o personificare a statului de unde i
celebra formul a regelui Ludovic al XIV-
lea statul sunt eu (L'Etat c'est moi) 13.
Adagiul latin, quod placuit principi,
legis habet vigorem, ceea ce-i place
principelui aceea are putere de lege,
incontestabil c nu poate s consfineasc,
acolo unde se aplic, o stare social n care
omenirea s poat s se dezvolte i s
progreseze, afirm profesorul Paul
Negulescu. 14
Problema puterilor n stat a existat
nc din lumea antic dei ea nu putea fi
pus nc n legtur cu principiul separrii
puterilor. Aristotel n Politica constat
existena n stat a unor organe diferite cu
atribuii precis determinate precum
Adunarea general, Corpul magistrailor
(funcionarilor) i Corpul judectoresc.
Potrivit acestuia n orice stat sunt trei pri:
Cea dinti din aceste trei pri este
Adunarea general, care delibereaz cu
privire la afacerile publice; a doua este
Corpul magistrailor, cruia trebuie s i se
hotrasc natura, atribuiunile i modul de
numire; a treia este Corpul judectoresc 15.
n concepia lui Aristotel, Adunarea
general trebuia s decid n unele probleme
precum pacea i rzboiul, ncheierea i
ruperea tratatelor, adoptarea legilor,
pronunarea pedepsei cu moartea, exilul,
confiscarea i primirea conturilor
magistrailor, Corpul magistrailor avea
rolul de a pune n executare hotrrile
Adunrii generale i Corpul judectoresc
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2014
competitive authority.47
Starting from its constitutional
importance and role in a lawful state, the
principle of powers separation inside the
state has become a theory of liberal
democracies and the individuals essential
guarantee in the reports with the power.48
Appeared during the Enlightenment,
this theory of powers separation inside the
state was directed against feudal
obscurantism and medieval rut, against the
power abuse. This theory was conceived as a
reaction against the absolute monarchy,
considered by the divine right as a form of
government where the king concentrated the
supreme power in his hands, considering
himself as a personification of the status,
whence Louis XIVs famous statement I am
the state (L'Etat c'est moi)49.
The Latin adage, quod placuit principi,
legis habet vigorem, what pleases the prince
has the force of law, incontestably cannot
consecrate, where it is applied, a social status
where humanity may develop and progress,
states professor Paul Negulescu.50
The powers problem inside the state
has been there since the antique world even
if it could not be connected to the principle
of powers separation. Aristotle in Politics
finds the existence inside the state of
different organs with precisely determined
attributions such as the General Assembly,
the Magistrates Court (the Clerk Court) and
the Judicial Court. According to him, any
state contains three parties: The first party is
the General Assembly deliberating regarding
the public affairs; the second one is the
Magistrates Court whose nature, attributions
and assigning way should be decided; the
third one is the Judicial Court51. From
Aristotles viewpoint, the General Assembly
should decide certain problems, such as
peace and way, contracting and breaking the
treaties, adopting laws, pronouncing the
capital punishment, the exile, confiscating
and receiving the magistrates accounts, the
Magistrates Court should execute the
decisions of the General Assembly and the
87
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2014
avea menirea de a judeca litigiile ce se
puteau ivi din modul de aplicare a legilor 16.
Referindu-se la consemnrile filosofului
grec, Ion Deleanu susinea c poate
nclinaia Stagiritului spre proporionalitate
i echilibru, ataamentul su fa de real i
fa de tiin, priceperea lui inegalabil de
a constata, clasa, sistematiza i compara l-au
fcut s se aplece i asupra modului de
organizare a statului elen, dezvluind
distribuirea acestuia unor organisme
deosebite17. Ideea a fost prezent i n
timpul evului mediu, n tezele colii
dreptului natural, n lucrrile lui Grotius,
Wolf, Pufendorf, care de asemenea au
constatat diferitele atribuii ale statului, ns,
fr a ntrezrii conceptul de separaie.
n Frana principiul separaiei
puterilor n stat a fost formulat pentru prima
dat n secolul al XVI-lea de scriitorul Jean
Bodin. n lucrarea Tratat asupra
Republicei, acesta discut despre mprirea
dreptii, susinnd c ea nu trebuie s fie
supus ambiiilor prinilor i fanteziei
poporului18. Charles Dallison, n lucrarea
sa The Royalists Defense (1648) a fcut
distincia ntre puterea suprem a
guvernrii regele i autoritatea care avea
misiunea de a judeca. El considera c regele
avea autoritatea executiv, neavnd atribuii
legislative19. Un alt contemporan al lui
Dallison, John Milton, poet englez, autorul
lucrrii Eikonoklastes (1649) afirma c n
cazul tuturor naiunilor nelepte puterea
legislativ i executarea pe cale
judectoreasc a acestei puteri au fost de
obicei diferite. Prima este suprem, iar cea
din urm subordonat. El considera c
monarhul este cel care execut legile i prin
urmare nu ar trebui s aib un drept de veto
n ceea ce privete legile adoptate20. n
Rights of the Kingdom, aprut n acelai
an, John Sadler considera c n statul englez
existau trei puteri: cea originar,
judectoreasc i executiv, reprezentate de
Camera Comunelor, Camera Lorzilor i
regele. Opinia lui Sadler a fost contestat de
John Lilburne. Acesta n lucrarea The
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2014
Judicial Court should judge the litigations
that appeared because of the law
application52. Referring to the Greek
philosopher Ion Deleanus writings, he stated
that maybe the Stagirites inclination to
proportionality and balance, his attachment
to reality and science, his unique skills to
find, classify, systematize and compare made
him focus on the organization of the Greek
state, by revealing its distribution to special
organisms53. The idea was also present
during the Middle Age, in the theses of the
natural law school, in the works of Grotius,
Wolf, Pufendorf who also found the different
state attributions, but without finding the
separation concept.
In France, the principle of powers
separation inside the state was formulated for
the first time in the 16th century by the
writer. In the work Treaty on the Republic,
he discusses on sharing justice, stating the it
should not be submitted to the princes
ambitions and to the peoples fantasy54.
Charles Dallison, it his work The Royalists
Defence (1648) made the difference between
the governments supreme power- the king
and the authority supposed to judge. He
considered that the king had the executive
authority, but without having legislative
attributions55. Another contemporary of
Dallison, John Milton, an English poet, the
author of Eikonoklastes (1649) stated that in
case of all wise nations, the legislative power
and the judicial execution of this power were
usually different. The first one is supreme
and the latter one is subordinated. He
considered that the monarch is the one
executing the laws and consequently, he
should have no veto right regarding the
adopted laws56. In Rights of the Kingdom,
appeared in the same year, John Sadler
considered that the English state contained
three powers: the original one, the judicial
one and the executive one, represented by the
Common Chamber, the Lords Chamber and
the king. Sadlers opinion was contested by
John Lilburne. He states, in The picture of
the Counsel of State (1649): The Common
88
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2014
picture of the Counsel of State (1649)
afirm: Camera Comunelor nu a fost
niciodat nvestit cu puterea executiv, ci
doar cu dreptul de a controla puterea. El
susine c dei parlamentul are puterea de a
nfiina tribunale, cu toate acestea
judectorii nu sunt membri ai organismului
legislativ21.
Thomas Hobbes, n lucrarea sa
Leviathan pretinde c ntr-un stat nu se
poate aplica principiul separaiei puterilor n
stat deoarece o putere executiv separat de
puterea legislativ nu poate exista. Cu toate
acestea, caracterul absolut al suveranului
artificial este derivat din suveranitatea
natural a fiecrui individ n stare de natur,
n care nu exist limite ale exercitrii
drepturilor individuale22.
Celui cruia i revine meritul de a fi
cercetat pentru prima oar mai metodic i
ntr-o nou lumin principiul separrii
puterilor este filosoful i juristul englez
John Locke (1632-1704). El a dat prima
formulare acestei doctrine atribuindu-i
valoarea unui principiu de organizare a
statului. n lucrarea Essay on civil
governement (aprut n anul 1690),
filosoful englez susinea existena a trei
puteri: legislativ, executiv i federativ. n
concepia lui Locke, puterea legislativ,
care era suprem, trebuia s aparin
parlamentului i era considerat puterea
suprem, deoarece edicta reguli de conduit
general obligatorii. Puterea executiv
limitat la aplicarea legilor i la rezolvarea
unor cazuri care nu puteau fi prevzute prin
lege, urma s fie ncredinat monarhului.
Puterea federativ era ncredinat tot
regelui i avea n competena sa dreptul de a
declara rzboi, de a face pace i a ncheia
tratate23. Potrivit acestuia, puterea
legislativ i executiv nu trebuiau s fie
ncredinate n mna unei singure persoane,
deoarece tentaia de a pune mna pe putere
ar fi prea mare dac aceleai persoane care
au puterea de a face legile ar avea n mn
i puterea de a le executa, deoarece ar
ncerca s se scuteasc de a se supune
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2014
Chamber was never invested with the
executive power, but only with the right to
control power. He states that, even if the
parliament has the power to settle courts, the
judges are not members of the legislative
organism57.
Thomas Hobbes, in his work Leviathan
claims that the principle of powers
separation cannot be applied inside a state
because an executive power separated from
the legislative power cannot exist. However,
the absolute character of the artificial
sovereign comes from the natural
sovereignty of each individual, where there
are no limits of the exertion of individual
rights58.
The man who did the methodical
research for the first time in a new light is the
English philosopher and jurist John Locke
(1632-1704). He gave the first formulation to
this doctrine, attributing it the value of a
state organization principle. In the work
Essay on civil government (appeared in
1690), the English philosopher stated there
are three powers: the legislative one, the
executive one and the federative one.
According to Locke, the legislative power,
which was supreme, should belong to the
parliament and it was considered as the
supreme power because it proclaimed
generally mandatory behaviour rules. The
executive power limited when applying the
laws and when solving cases that could not
be stipulated by law, was to be entrusted to
the monarch. The federative power was also
entrusted to the king and its competence
contained the right to declare ware, to make
peace and to contract treaties59. According to
him, the legislative power and the executive
one should not be entrusted to only one
person because the temptation to have the
power would be too strong if the persons
making the laws also had the power to
execute them, because they would try to
exonerate from submitting to the laws they
make60. He assigned the power to make
laws to certain assemblies especially
convoked in this purpose. After the laws are
89
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2014
legilor pe care le fac24. El atribuia puterea
de a face legile unor adunri, convocate
special pentru acest scop. Dup ce legile au
fost adoptate, adunrile trebuie s se separe
din nou, urmnd ca ele s se supun legilor
pe care le-au adoptat25. Dei face distincia
ntre puterea executiv i federativ, el
admite totui c cele dou pot fi reunite i
exercitate de acelai organ deoarece dac
puterea federativ i executiv sunt
distincte, este totui dificil s se separe i s
se ntrebuineze ntr-un timp dat la diferite
persoane26. Singura putere din stat
nerecunoscut de Locke, este cea
judectoreasc. Filosoful englez consider
c aceast din urm putere se nfieaz legislative power or the supreme power in a
mai degrab ca un accesoriu al puterii
legislative: cine are puterea legislativ sau
suprema putere ntr-o republic este inut s
guverneze prin legi fixe i stabile,
promulgate i cunoscute de popor, prin
judectori impariali i cultivai care sunt
nsrcinai s traneze litigiile dup aceste
legi, iar nu prin decrete de circumstan 27.
Acest punct de vedere al lui a fost criticat
de-a lungul timpului. Unul dintre
contestatarii acestuia a fost marele jurist
Paul Negulescu care consider c Locke nu
ne nfieaz o teorie asupra separaiunii
puterilor ci ne d numai o clasificare a
atribuiunilor 28. Referindu-se la doctrina
politic a acestui filosof, Valentin
Naumescu consider c aceasta este o
doctrin a limitrii puterii, i din aceast
surs provine i interesul modernitii
pentru ea: principiul obiectiv al politicii
democratice de dreapta, al dreptei moderate
occidentale; al liberalismului
conservatorismului a fost i a rmas
prevenirea abuzului de putere, limitarea
exceselor autoritii, prevenirea
despotismului, a dictaturii (fie ea
individual, de grup sau chiar dictatur a
majoritii)29.
Ideile filosofului englez au avut o
deosebit importan pentru istoria
doctrinelor politice. Ele au fost sursa din
care s-a inspirat Charles-Louis de Secondat,
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2014
adopted, the assemblies should be separated
again and they are to respect the laws they
adopted61. Even if he makes the difference
between the executive power and the
federative one, he admits though that the two
of them could be reunited and exerted by the
same organ because if the federative power
and the executive one are different, it is still
difficult to separate them and to be used
during a certain time by different persons62.
The only power of the state which is not
considered by Locke is the judicial one. The
English philosopher considers that this last
power is more like an accessory of the
legislative power: whoever has the
republic is kept to govern by settled and
stable laws enacted and known by the
people, by impartial and cultured judges
whose attribution is to solve the litigations
according to these laws, not to circumstance
decrees63. This viewpoint of his was
criticized across the time. One of its
objectors was the great jurist Paul Negulescu
who considered that Locke did not show a
theory on the powers separation but it only
gave us a classification of the attributions64.
Referring to this philosophers political
doctrine, Valentin Naumescu considers that
this is a doctrine of power limitation and
this is also the source of the modernity
interest for it: the main purpose of the right
democratic policy, of the occidental
moderate right; the one of liberalism and
conservationism has been the prevention of
power abuse, the limitation of authority
excesses, the prevention of despotism, of
i dictatorship (either individual, or in group or
even a majority dictatorship)65.
The English philosophers ideas had a
special importance for the history of political
doctrines. They were the inspiration source
of Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de
Montesquieu (1689-1755) when, in his book
L'esprit des lois he discussed and deepened
the problem of powers separation inside the
state, and his theory was found in the main
points of the programs of the bourgeois
90
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2014
baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755) atunci
cnd, n cartea sa L'esprit des lois a reluat i
aprofundat problema separrii puterilor
statului, teoria lui regsindu-se n punctele
principale ale programelor revoluiilor
burgheze. Dup Montesquieu n orice stat
exist trei puteri distincte: puterea
legiuitoare, executiv i judectoreasc.
Puterea executiv era ncredinat
monarhului care avea dreptul s declare
rzboi sau s ncheie pace, s trimit sau s
primeasc solii, s ia msuri de securitate i
s prentmpine nvlirile. Puterea
legislativ era exercit de monarh i de un
corp legislativ care trebuiau s adopte legi
noi, s le ndrepte sau s le abroge pe cele
existente. Cei care reprezentau puterea
judectoreasc aveau ca obiective
pedepsirea infraciunilor i judecarea
litigiilor dintre particulari. Aceste puteri
trebuie s fie atribuite unor organe separate
i independente unele de altele pentru c,
scria Montesquieu orice om care are o
putere este nclinat s abuzeze de ea astfel
pentru a nu se abuza de putere trebuie ca
prin aezarea lucrurilor puterea s opreasc
puterea30. Puterea public trebuie s fie
divizat ntre mai multe puteri aa nct o
putere s se opun celeilalte i s creeze, n
locul unei fore unice, un echilibru de
puteri. Prin faptul c puterea de comand n
stat se fraciona ntre mai multe organe care
aveau acelai interes n aa fel nct
atribuiile sale s nu fie nclcate de
celelalte organe, se asigura aplicarea strict
a legilor si respectarea libertilor
individuale: Atunci cnd n minile
aceleiai persoane sau aceluiai corp de
dregtori, puterea legislativ este ntrunit
cu puterea executiv, nu exist libertate,
deoarece poate nate teama ca acelai
monarh sau acelai senat s fac legi
tiranice pe care s le aplice n mod tiranic.
Nu exist, de asemenea, libertate, dac
puterea judectoreasc nu este separat de
puterea legislativ i de cea executiv. Dac
ea ar fi mbinat cu puterea legislativ,
puterea asupra vieii i libertii cetenilor
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2014
revolutions. According to Montesquieu any
state has three different powers: the
legislative power, the executive power and
the judicial power. The executive power was
entrusted to the monarch having the right to
declare way or to make peace, to send or
receive envoys, to take safety measures and
to prevent assaults. The legislative power
was exerted by the monarch and by a
legislative organ which had to adopt new
laws, to correct them or to abrogate the
existing ones. The representatives of the
judicial power had purposes such as
punishing the offences and judging the
litigations between the particulars. These
powers should be assigned to separate
independent organs because, according to
Montesquieu, any man with power tends to
abuse it thus in order not to abuse the
power, the settlement of the things should
make the power stop the power66. The
public power should be divided between
several powers so that a power should
oppose to the other one and it should create,
instead of a unique force, power balance. By
the fact that the commanding power inside
the state was divided between several organs
having the same interest so that its
attributions were not disrespected by the
other organs, the strict application of laws
and the respect of the individual liberties
were provided: When the same person or
clerk organ has both the legislative power
and the executive one, there is no freedom
because the same monarch or senate could
make tyrannical laws they could tyrannically
apply. There is also no freedom unless the
judicial power is separated from the
legislative power and from the executive
one. If it was combined with the legislative
power, the power on the citizens life and
liberty would be arbitrary because the judge
could also be a legislator. If it was combined
with the executive power, the judge could
have the force of an aggressor67.
Montesquieu inferred that the powers
separation applied absolutely and absurdly
would actually block the government
91
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2014
ar fi arbitrar, cci judectorul ar fi i
legiuitor. Dac ea ar fi mbinat cu puterea
executiv, judectorul ar putea avea fora
unui agresor31. Montesquieu a intuit c
separaia puterilor aplicat n mod absolut i
absurd ar bloca, practic, procesul de
guvernare. Dac cele trei puteri nu ar
coopera i s-ar nfrna neproductiv i
ineficient una pe alta, doar de dragul
nfrnrii, ar ajunge la un punct mort, adic
la inaciune32.
Conceptul separrii puterilor se
ntlnete i n lucrarea lui Jean-Jacques
Rousseau intitulat Contractul social.
Pentru acesta, puterea legislativ se
confund cu nsui conceptul de
suveranitate, care este un drept al
poporului33. Ea nu putea fi exercitat dect
pe cale direct, prin votul ntregii naiuni i
nu putea s aib caracter general i
impersonal. Puterea executiv sau
guvernmntul nu putea s consiste dect n
acte particulare i se distingea n mod
necesar de dreptul legiuitorului.
i pentru Rousseau ca i pentru
Locke, puterea judectoreasc nu este ceva
distinct. Ea este o ramur a puterii executive
i nu a celei legislative, supus unor
anumite reguli speciale34.
Cea dinti aplicaie practic a
principiului separaiei puterilor n stat a fost
realizat de statele americane care n secolul
al XVIII-lea se gseau n plin revoluie
constituional.
Teoria separaiei puterilor statului a
fost elaborat n epoca de apogeu a
absolutismului de tip feudal i a fost
promovat cu scopul de a pune n lumin
lipsa de suport legitim a acelei organizri
statale. Ea nu viza cercetarea rdcinilor
istorice ale separaiei puterilor statului, ci,
pur i simplu, nlturarea regimului
absolutist i instaurarea unui regim
democratic, prin reformarea radical a
sistemului statal de atunci.
Cercetarea istoric a acestui fenomen
evideniaz faptul c separaia puterilor
statului nu este legat, n mod nemijlocit, de
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2014
process. If the three power did not cooperate
and if they stopped each other in a non-
productive and inefficient manner, only for
the stopping sake, they would reach to a dead
point, namely to inaction68.
The concept of powers separation is
also found in Jean-Jacques Rousseaus work
named Social Contract. According to him,
the legislative power is taken by the
sovereignty concept which is a peoples
right69. It could be exerted only directly, by
the vote of the entire nation and it could not
have a general and impersonal character. The
executive power or the government could
consist only of particular documents and it
was necessarily different from the
legislators right.
According to both Rousseau and
Locke, the judicial power is not something
different. It is a branch of the executive
power, not of the legislative one, submitted
to certain special rules70.
The first practical application of the
principle of powers separation inside the
state was achieved by the American states
which were in a full constitutional revolution
in the 18th century.
The theory of powers separation inside
the state was elaborated in the top age of
feudal absolutism and it was promoted in
order to spotlight the lack of legal support of
that state organization. It did not refer to the
research of the historical roots of the powers
separation inside the state, but simply to the
removal of the absolutist system and to the
instalment of a democratic system, by the
radical reform of the state system back then.
The historical research of this
phenomenon spotlights the fact that the
powers separation inside the state is not
directly connected to a certain development
stage of society, but to the existing political
system, proved by the fact that the powers
separation inside the state did not occur in
the totalitarian state systems, no matter the
historical age. By the historical research, we
may also notice that the powers separation
inside the state could never be purely
92
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2014
un anumit stadiu de dezvoltare a societii,
ci de regimul politic existent, dovad c
separarea puterilor statului nu a avut loc n
sisteme statale totalitare, indiferent de epoca
istoric n care a existat. Prin cercetarea
istoric se poate observa i faptul c
separaia puterilor statului nu s-a putut
realiza niciodat n form pur, ci a
cunoscut limite i inconsecvene, decurgnd
din natura puterii statale.
3. Concluzii
Principiul separaiei i echilibrului
puterilor n stat nu i-a gsit o exprimare
direct n constituiile mai multor ri, din
diverse motive: fie c nu exist o separaie
net a puterilor, fie c principiul separaiei
i mecanismul de echilibrare a puterilor n
stat nu este exprimat direct, expresis verbis,
mecanismul de separare, echilibrare i
conlucrare a puterilor n stat reieind din
dispoziiile constituionale privind
reglementarea prerogativelor organismelor
mputernicite a nfptui puterea n stat.
Afirmarea acestui principiu, chiar i n
statele moderne, cu democraie dezvoltat,
comport anumite amendamente, care reduc
din valorile sale morale din perioada de
nceput. Este i motivul pentru care unii
teoreticieni cer nlturarea lui ca fiind
perimat, alii pledeaz pentru
modernizarea, adecvarea lui n favoarea
unei puteri forte, care se vrea a fi
executivul.35 Separaia puterilor statului
presupune ncredinarea i exercitarea
diferitelor funcii ale statului unor organe
distincte i independente unul fa de altul36.
Se poate astfel observa, c acest coninut al
noiunii de separaie a puterilor s-a
conturat dup un lung proces istoric.
Bibliografie
1.Andrei Constantin, Este respectat
principiul separaiei i echilibrului puterilor
n stat?, Revista Studii de drept romnesc,
Nr. 2/2009
2.Ioan Muraru, Simina Tnsescu, Drept
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2014
achieved, but it knew limits and
inconsequence, coming from the nature of
the state power.
3. Conclusions
The principle of powers separation
and balance inside the state found no direct
expression in the constitutions of several
countries, for many reasons: either there is
no net separation of the powers, or the
separation principle and the mechanism of
powers balance inside the state is not
directly expressed, expresis verbis, the
mechanism of separation, balancing and
pulling together the powers inside the state,
comes from the constitutional stipulations
regarding the prerogative regulation of the
organs having power inside the state. The
affirmation of this principle, even in the
modern states with a developed democracy,
has certain amendments reducing its moral
values in the beginning period. This is also
the reason why some theoreticians demand
its removal since it is played out, others
require its modernisation, to adequate it to
a strong power, namely to the executive
one.71 The powers separation inside the state
supposes the entrustment and exertion of
different functions of the state to different
independent organs72. We may see thus that
this content of the powers separation
notion was outlined after a long historical
process.
References
1.Andrei Constantin, Is the Principle of
Powers Separation and Balance Respected
Inside the State?, Studies of Romanian Law
Magazine, No.. 2/2009
2.Ioan Muraru, Simina Tnsescu,
Constitutional Law and Political Institutions,
the 9th Edition reviewed and completed,
Lumina Lex Press, Bucharest, 2001
3.Paul Negulescu, Course of Romanian
Constitutional Law, edited by Alex. Th.
Doicescu, United Romanian Presses,
Bucharest, 1927
4.Cristian Ionescu, Political Institutions and
93
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2014
constituional i instituii politice, Ediia a
IX-a revzut i completat, Editura Lumina
Lex, Bucureti, 2001
3.Paul Negulescu, Curs de drept
constituional romn, editat de Alex. Th.
Doicescu, Tipografiile romne unite,
Bucureti, 1927
4.Cristian Ionescu, Instituii politice i drept
constituional , Editura Fundaiei Romnia
de Mine , Bucureti ,1999
5.Zoica Zamfirescu, Sistemul actual
constituional romnesc, Editura SITECH,
Craiova, 2005
6.Ion Deleanu, Drept constituional i
instituii politice. Tratat, Bucureti, Editura
Europa Nova, 1996
7.Aristotel, Politica, Bucureti, 1924
8.Cristian Ionescu, Principii fundamentale
ale democraiei constituionale, Bucureti,
Editura Lumina Lex, 1997
9.Gheorghe Tnase Gheorghe, Separaia
puterilor n stat (Marea Britanie, Statele
Unite ale Americii, Frana, Romnia),
Bucureti, Editura tiinific, 1994
10.Radu Carp, Responsabilitatea
ministerial, Bucureti, Editura All Beck,
2003
11.George Alexianu, Curs de drept
constituional, vol. II, partea I, Bucureti,
1932
12.Valentin Naumescu, Sisteme politice
comparate. Elemente de baz, Cluj-Napoca,
Editura Crii de tiin, 2003
13.Constantin C. Dissescu, Introducere la
studiul dreptului constituional, Bucureti,
1911
14.Montesquieu, Spiritul legilor, vol. I,
Traducere i note de Armand Rou. Studiu
introductiv de Dan Bdru, Bucureti,
Editura tiinific, 1964
15.Ovidiu Trsnea, Filosofia politic,
Bucureti, Editura Politic, 1956
16.Camelia Rodica Tomescu, Raporturile
dintre guvern i parlament n dreptul
romnesc i comparat, Tez de doctorat,
Bucureti, 2011
17.Tudor Drganu, Drept constituional i
instituii politice tratat elementar, vol. I,
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2014
Constitutional Law, Romnia de Mine
Foundations Press, Bucharest ,1999
5.Zoica Zamfirescu, Current Romanian
Constitutional System, SITECH Press,
Craiova, 2005
6.Ion Deleanu, Constitutional Law and
Political Institutions. Treaty, Bucharest,
Europa Nova Press, 1996
7.Aristotel, Politics, Bucharest, 1924
8.Cristian Ionescu, Basic Principles of
Constitutional Democracy, Bucharest,
Lumina Lex Press, 1997
9.Gheorghe Tnase Gheorghe, Powers
Separation Inside the State (Great Britain,
United States of America, France, Romania),
Bucharest, Scientific Press, 1994
10.Radu Carp, Ministerial Responsibility,
Bucharest, All Beck Press, 2003
11.George Alexianu, Course of
Constitutional Law, vol. II, part I, Bucharest,
1932
12.Valentin Naumescu, Compared Political
Systems. Basic Elements, Cluj-Napoca,
Science Book Press, 2003
13.Constantin C. Dissescu, Introduction to
Studying Constitutional Law, Bucharest,
1911
14.Montesquieu, Law Spirit, vol. I,
Translation and notes by Armand Rou.
Introductory Study by Dan Bdru,
Bucharest, Scientific Press, 1964
15.Ovidiu Trsnea, Political Philosophy,
Bucharest, Political Press, 1956
16.Camelia Rodica Tomescu, Reports
between Government and Parliament in
Romanian Law and Compared Law, PhD
Thesis, Bucharest, 2011
17.Tudor Drganu, Constitutional Law and
Political Institutions Elementary Treaty,
vol. I, Trgu Mure, 1993.
18. Laura Magdalena Trocan, Quelques
considrations sur la Loi no. 298/2008 par
rapport aux prvoyances constitutionnelles
de la Roumanie et aux documents
internationaux de garantie et de protection
des droits de lhomme, Proceedings of the
1st International Scientific Conference The
Role and Place of Law in a Society Based on
94
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2014

Trgu Mure, 1993 Knowledge", organized by University

18.Laura Magdalena Trocan, Quelques
considrations sur la Loi no. 298/2008 par
rapport aux prvoyances constitutionnelles
de la Roumanie et aux documents
internationaux de garantie et de protection
des droits de lhomme, Proceedings of the
1st International Scientific Conference The
Role and Place of Law in a Society Based
on Knowledge", organizat de Universitatea
Constantin Brncui din Trgu-Jiu,
Facultatea de tiine Juridice n parteneriat
cu Universitatea Masaryk din Brno,
Facultatea de Drept, Editura Academica
Brncui, Trgu-Jiu, 2009
19.L. M. Trocan, The citizen rights and
liberties within the constitutional evolution
of Romania, Analele Universitii
Constantin Brncui din Trgu-Jiu, Seria
Litere i tiine Sociale, nr. 4/2013
20.L. M. Trocan, A. Gh. Gavrilescu, I. R.
Tomescu, Reflectarea n noua Constituie a
Romniei a principiilor de nfptuire a
justiiei, Revista Legea i viaa, Chiinu,
nr. 3/2004
21. Alin-Gheorghe Gavrilescu, Separaia
puterilor n stat condiie a funcionrii
optime a societii n volumul Legislaia i
educaia n perspectiva integrrii europene,
Editura Universitaria Craiova
Constantin Brncui of Targu-Jiu, Faculty
of Juridical Sciences in partenership with
Masaryk University, Faculty of Law, Brno,
Academica Brncusi Publisher Targu-Jiu,
2009, p. 578-579.
19. Laura Magdalena Trocan, The citizen
rights and liberties within the constitutional
evolution of Romania, Annals of University
Constantin Brncui of Targu-Jiu, Letters
and Social Sciences Series, no. 4/2013.
20. Laura Magdalena Trocan, Alin
Gheorghe Gavrilescu, Ina Raluca Tomescu,
The reflection in the new Romanian
Constitution of the principles of justice,
Revue Law and Life, Chiinu, no. 3/2004,
p. 50.
21. Alin-Gheorghe Gavrilescu, The Powers
Separation in the State Condition for
Optimum Functioning of Society, in the
volum Legislation and Education in the
Perspective of European Integration,
Universitaria Craiova Publishing House,
2004

1
A se vedea Alin-Gheorghe Gavrilescu, Separaia puterilor n stat condiie a funcionrii optime a societii
n volumul Legislaia i educaia n perspectiva integrrii europene, Editura Universitaria Craiova, p. 263 i urm.
2Laura Magdalena Trocan, Quelques considrations sur la Loi no. 298/2008 par rapport aux prvoyances

constitutionnelles de la Roumanie et aux documents internationaux de garantie et de protection des droits de

lhomme, Proceedings of the 1st International Scientific Conference The Role and Place of Law in a Society
Based on Knowledge", organizat de Universitatea Constantin Brncui din Trgu-Jiu, Facultatea de tiine
Juridice n parteneriat cu Universitatea Masaryk din Brno, Facultatea de Drept, Editura Academica Brncui,
Trgu-Jiu, 2009, p.578-579.
3
Pentru o evoluie a sistemului constituional n Romnia vezi Laura Magdalena Trocan, The citizen rights and
liberties within the constitutional evolution of Romania, Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu-
Jiu, Seria Litere i tiine Sociale, nr. 4/2013.
4 Andrei Constantin, Este respectat principiul separaiei i echilibrului puterilor n stat?, Revista Studii de drept

romnesc, Nr. 2/2009, p.185, revist online www.rsdr.ro

5 Ioan Muraru, Simina Tnsescu, Drept constituional i instituii politice, Ediia a IX-a revzut i completat,

Editura Lumina Lex, Bucureti, 2001,p 268-269

6 Paul Negulescu, Curs de drept constituional romn, editat de Alex. Th. Doicescu, Tipografiile romne unite,

Bucureti, 1927, p. 298

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2014
95
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2014

7 Ibidem, p. 203.
8
Ibidem, p. 77-80, 211. Legitimitatea este o judecat de valoare asupra unui sistem de guvernmnt, reprezint
un dat social subiectiv, dependent de evoluia concepiilor i a sentimentelor dominante ntr-o colectivitate
uman. Legalitatea reprezint conformitatea cu legea aflat n vigoare, ceea ce presupune obligaia general i
absolut de respectare a legii. Pentru o definiie din perspectiva tiinelor politice anterioare anului 1989 vezi
Dicionar politic, Bucureti, Editura Politic, 1975 s.v. (funcie social fundamental, care const n adoptarea
deciziilor privind ansamblul societii globale i n aducerea la ndeplinire a acestora cu ajutorul autoritii
suverane i a supremaiei puterii publice de stat).
9 Cristian Ionescu, Instituii politice i drept constituional , Editura Fundaiei Romnia de Mine , Bucureti

,1999 , p. 97
10
Laura Magdalena Trocan, Alin Gheorghe Gavrilescu, Ina Raluca Tomescu, Reflectarea n noua Constituie a
Romniei a principiilor de nfptuire a justiiei, Revista Legea i viaa, Chiinu, nr. 3/2004, p. 50.
11 Zoica Zamfirescu, Sistemul actual constituional romnesc, Editura SITECH, Craiova, 2005, p. 121-122
12 Ion Deleanu, Drept constituional i instituii politice. Tratat, Bucureti, Editura Europa Nova, 1996, p. 76
13 Ioan Muraru, Simina Tnsescu, Drept constituional i instituii politice, Ediia a IX-a revzut i completat,

Editura Lumina Lex, Bucureti, 2001,p 268-269

14 Paul Negulescu, Curs de drept constituional romn, editat de Alex. Th. Doicescu, Tipografiile romne unite,

Bucureti, 1927, p. 298

15
Aristotel, Politica, Bucureti, 1924, p. 241.
16Cristian Ionescu, Principii fundamentale ale democraiei constituionale, Bucureti, Editura Lumina Lex, 1997,

p. 99.
17 Ion Deleanu, op.cit., p. 79.
18 Apud Gheorghe Tnase Gheorghe, Separaia puterilor n stat (Marea Britanie, Statele Unite ale Americii,

Frana, Romnia), Bucureti, Editura tiinific, 1994, p. 6.

19 Radu Carp, Responsabilitatea ministerial, Bucureti, Editura All Beck, 2003, p. 22.
20
Ibidem.
21
Ibidem.
22Ibidem, p. 24-25.
23 George Alexianu, Curs de drept constituional, vol. II, partea I, Bucureti, 1932, p. 10; Cristian Ionescu,

Principii fundamentale ale democraiei constituionale, p. 109.

24 Gheorghe Tnase Gheorghe, op. cit., p. 8; Cristian Ionescu, Instituii politice i drept constituional, p. 106.
25 Gheorghe Tnase Gheorghe, op. cit., p. 8.
26 Ibidem.
27
Ibidem, p. 9.
28
Paul Negulescu, Curs de drept constituional, Bucureti, 1927, p. 307.
29 Valentin Naumescu, Sisteme politice comparate. Elemente de baz, Cluj-Napoca, Editura Crii de tiin,

2003, p. 14.
30 Constantin C. Dissescu, Introducere la studiul dreptului constituional, Bucureti, 1911, p. 652.
31 Montesquieu, Spiritul legilor, vol. I, Traducere i note de Armand Rou. Studiu introductiv de Dan Bdru,

Bucureti, Editura tiinific, 1964, p. 195-196; Gheorghe Tnase Gheorghe, op. cit., p. 9-10; Cristian Ionescu,
Instituii politice i drept constituional, p. 109; Idem, Principii fundamentale ale democraiei constituionale,
p.111-114.
32
Paul Negulescu, op. cit., p. 313; Gheorghe Tnase Gheorghe, op. cit., p. 13; Cristian Ionescu, Instituii politice
i drept constituional, p. 110.
33 Ovidiu Trsnea, Filosofia politic, Bucureti, Editura Politic, 1956, p. 176.
34 George Alexianu, op. cit., p. 14.
35 Camelia Rodica Tomescu, Raporturile dintre guvern i parlament n dreptul romnesc i comparat, Tez de

doctorat, Bucureti, 2011, p.6-7, http://www.unibuc.ro/studies/Doctorate2011

36 Tudor Drganu, Drept constituional i instituii politice tratat elementar, vol. I, Trgu Mure, 1993, p. 253.
37
See Alin-Gheorghe Gavrilescu, The Powers Separation in the State Condition for Optimum Functioning of
Society, in the volum Legislation and Education in the Perspective of European Integration, Universitaria
Craiova Publishing House, 2004, p. 263.
38 Laura Magdalena Trocan, Quelques considrations sur la Loi no. 298/2008 par rapport aux prvoyances

constitutionnelles de la Roumanie et aux documents internationaux de garantie et de protection des droits de

lhomme, Proceedings of the 1st International Scientific Conference The Role and Place of Law in a Society
Based on Knowledge", organized by University Constantin Brncui of Targu-Jiu, Faculty of Juridical

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2014
96
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2014

Sciences in partenership with Masaryk University, Faculty of Law, Brno, Academica Brncusi Publisher Targu-
Jiu, 2009, p. 578-579.
39
For an evolution of Romanian constitutional system see Laura Magdalena Trocan, The citizen rights and
liberties within the constitutional evolution of Romania, Annals of University Constantin Brncui of Targu-
Jiu, Letters and Social Sciences Series, no. 4/2013.
40 Andrei Constantin, Is the Principle of Powers Separation and Balance Respected Inside the State?, Romanian

Law Studies Magazine, No. 2/2009, p.185, online magazine www.rsdr.ro

41 Ioan Muraru, Simina Tnsescu, Constitutional Law and Political Institutions, the 9th Edition reviewed and

completed, Lumina Lex Press, Bucharest, 2001,p 268-269

42
Paul Negulescu, Course of Romanian Constitutional Law, edited by Alex. Th. Doicescu, United Romanian
Presses, Bucharest, 1927, p. 298
43 Ibidem, p. 203.
44 Ibidem, p. 77-80, 211. Legitimacy is a value judgement on a government system, it represents a subjective

social given depending on the evolution of the dominant conceptions and sentiments in a human community.
Legacy represents the conformity with the valid law, supposing the general and absolute obligation of respecting
the law. For a definition from the perspective of the political sciences before 1989 see Political Dictionary,
Bucharest, Political Press, 1975 s.v. (a basic social function consisting of adopting the decisions regarding the
ensemble of the global society and of achieving them by means of the sovereign authority and of the supremacy
of the public state power).
45 Cristian Ionescu, Political Institutions and Constitutional Law, Romnia de Mine Foundations Press,

Bucharest, 1999 , p. 97
46 Laura Magdalena Trocan, Alin Gheorghe Gavrilescu, Ina Raluca Tomescu, The reflection in the new

Romanian Constitution of the principles of justice, Revue Law and Life, Chiinu, no. 3/2004, p. 50.
47 Zoica Zamfirescu, Romanian Current Constitutional System, SITECH Press, Craiova, 2005, p. 121-122
48 Ion Deleanu, Constitutional Law and Political Institutions, Treaty, Bucharest, Europa Nova Press, 1996, p. 76
49
Ioan Muraru, Simina Tnsescu, Constitutional Law and Political Institutions, the 9th Edition reviewed and
completed, Lumina Lex Press, Bucharest, 2001,p 268-269
50 Paul Negulescu, Course of Romanian Constitutional Law, edited by Alex. Th. Doicescu, United Romanian

Presses, Bucharest, 1927, p. 298

51 Aristotel, Politics, Bucharest, 1924, p. 241.
52Cristian Ionescu, Basic principles of Constitutional Democracy, Bucharest, Lumina Lex Press, 1997, p. 99.
53 Ion Deleanu, op.cit., p. 79.
54 Apud Gheorghe Tnase Gheorghe, Powers Separation Inside the State (Great Britain, United States of

America, France, Romania), Bucharest, Scientific Press, 1994, p. 6.

55
Radu Carp, Ministerial Responsibility, Bucharest, All Beck Press, 2003, p. 22.
56 Ibidem.
57 Ibidem.
58Ibidem, p. 24-25.
59 George Alexianu, Course of Constitutional Law, vol. II, part I, Bucharest, 1932, p. 10; Cristian Ionescu, Basic

Principles of Constitutional Democracy, p. 109.

60 Gheorghe Tnase Gheorghe, op. cit., p. 8; Cristian Ionescu, Political Institutions and Constitutional Law, p.

106.
61
Gheorghe Tnase Gheorghe, op. cit., p. 8.
62 Ibidem.
63Ibidem, p. 9.
64 Paul Negulescu, Course of Constitutional Law, Bucharest, 1927, p. 307.
65 Valentin Naumescu, Compared Political Systems. Basic Elements, Cluj-Napoca, Science Book Press, 2003, p.

14.
66 Constantin C. Dissescu, Introduction to Studying Constitutional Law, Bucharest, 1911, p. 652.
67
Montesquieu, Law Spirit, vol. I, Translation and notes by Armand Rou. Introductive Study by Dan Bdru,
Bucharest, Scientific Press, 1964, p. 195-196; Gheorghe Tnase Gheorghe, op. cit., p. 9-10; Cristian Ionescu,
Political Institutions and Constitutional Law, p. 109; Idem, Basic Principles of Constitutional Democracy,
p.111-114.
68 Paul Negulescu, op. cit., p. 313; Gheorghe Tnase Gheorghe, op. cit., p. 13; Cristian Ionescu, Political

Institutions and Constitutional Law, p. 110.

69 Ovidiu Trsnea, Political Philosophy, Bucharest, Political Press, 1956, p. 176.

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2014
97
Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2014

70 George Alexianu, op. cit., p. 14.

71
Camelia Rodica Tomescu, Reports between Government and Parliament in Romanian Law and Compared
Law, PhD Thesis, Bucharest, 2011, p.6-7, http://www.unibuc.ro/studies/Doctorate2011
72 Tudor Drganu, Constitutional Law and Political Institutions Elementary Treaty, vol. I, Trgu Mure, 1993,

p. 253.

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2014
98