Beruin, Laurence C. Dr.

Alex Tenorio, PhD

MA-TSS
1. How did the Plato, Aristotle, and Polybius explained the significance of checks and
balance in a system of governance?
The principle of checks and balances in a governmental body separates the three
branches (executive, legislative and judiciary) as empowered entities to limit other
branches from going overboard and abusing its power over the people. This is an
important principle to a constitutional government as a way to reaffirm and question other
branches course of action in any given scenario, particularly if there are cases of overruling
constitutional provisions.
In Plato’s the Laws, he propositioned that a treatise is more stable if three states
will be involved rather than a bilateral agreement. The reason behind his notion is the
likelihood that when one party broke the agreement, such party would face the other two
combined. This doctrine in international relations is called the balance of power doctrine.
While the said doctrine was not viewed by Plato as similar to checks and balances, the
principle has discerning resemblance to the principle of check and balances, that is, when
applied to the governmental bodies. While the principle of checks and balances does not
uphold an amalgamated two branches of government overpowering the superseding
branch, it shall, in essence, promote stability and order amongst three branches.
For Aristotle, although not stated explicitly, the principle of checks and balances
can be extracted on his acceptance of the triadic classification of the types of government
namely: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy; and the recognition of the argument that
the best government is a mixture and combination of all three in a (city)state. It is
comparable to the principle of checks and balances by treating each type of government
as a distinctive branch in a constitutional government that is; monarchy as the executive,
aristocracy as the judiciary, and democracy as the legislative. While arguments can be
made as such analogies were made, I want to justify democracy as legislative by quoting
“The welfare of the people should be the supreme law”, thus law should be made by those
who care for the welfare of the people, hence the people themselves. Following the above
analogy of three branches, as Aristotle geared towards the great importance of division of
labor and its political application in which everyone has an essential purpose or function
in a government. He believed that those in power should serve as guardians and
administer the law, bounded by constitutional order, which in turn is the basic tennet of
the principle of checks and balances.
Polybius’ political philosophy expressed the idea of formulating a constitutional
system that constrains the power of various organs of the state by setting them in
opposition to one another. In relations to Aristotle’s three types of government, success in
ancient city-states were due to the creation of characteristic virtues which, according to
him, uniting the best characteristics of each government so that none can grow unduly of
power and can be counteracted by that of others. The principle of checks and balances,
on his examples, served as governmental system that promoted equilibrium of
counterpoised elements such that preservation of citizens’ liberty is of importance.
2. How is the principle of checks and balances by Polybius exemplified in The Spirit of the
Laws by Montesquieu?
Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws, while uintended to present English
constitution (form of governance) as a model for all societies, was considered as an
embodiment of harmony amongst English people, their cultural values, and suffice to say,
the separation of powers that seeks mutual dependency in a non-hierarchical manner.
The latter in which, the principle of checks and balances came into light.
The doctrine of ‘separation of powers’ illustrated the triadic classification of
government that the philosopher, Polybius, expressed in his works epochs ago. Such
classification is composed of the legislative, executive, and the judicial branch. For
Montesquieu, the notion of separation of the triadic classification (branches of
government) to promote mutual dependency in a non-hierarchical manner is what is
necessary in every state. While discrediting judiciary function as a different body on its
own right, for the purpose of this explanation, the focus will be on the actual application of
his theory on all three branches.
Montesquieu viewed that each branch must be embodied under different
institutions (entities) so as to constrain one another, hence if performed under the same
authoritative figures shall lead to an end of liberty. It should be noted that legislative branch
under English constitution, similar to the Philippine bicameral system, was divided into two
bodies that shall check one another by “the mutual privilege of rejection” of each other
proposals. The mutual, in this case a treatise according to Plato, will not produce a
stalemate in any political equilibrium, rather will require each branches must move “in
concert” or do their political functions together. To be clear, his doctrine of separation of
powers was not to endorse independent powers but highlighted that it is the dependency
that set arrangements of separated powers in an equilibrium mechanism of mutual
dependence that protects political liberty. Hence, if each branch shall function properly
and interdependently under the limits of their constitutionality, people’s freedom and to
some extent stability and order in a country or a state is a guarantee. Such that the very
purpose of the principle of checks and balances, to Polybius, is the importance of
characteristic virtue, specifically promoting liberty (freedom).