In In the Matter of El Paso County Courthouse, 765 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1989, no writ), several judges entered an order similar to the order entered by Respondent in that it made findings regarding the condition of the then-existing county courthouse, its unsuitability for the courts' functions, the passage of a $ 35 million bond issue for the purpose of constructing a new courthouse, the initial steps taken by the commissioners court in pursuing construction of a new courthouse, and the controversy within the commissioners court over the location and design of the new courthouse. Id. at 877. The order directed the commissioners court to issue whatever resolutions and orders necessary to the expeditious completion of the new courthouse. Id. at 877-78. Three of the county commissioners appealed. The order was not a final judgment nor was it an appealable interlocutory order. Because the opiniondismissed the appeal on other grounds, it did not address an argument pertaining to jurisdiction. See In re El PasoCounty Courthouse, 765 S.W.2d at 878. In retrospect, the opinion should have addressed the jurisdictional issue anddismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order could have been challenged by a petition for writ ofmandamus. the El Paso County Attorney filed a brief on behalf of one of the other commissioners and took the position that there were four distinct bases which authorized the courts to intervene and issue the order. First, the County Attorney argued that the courts could intervene in the matter since the commissioners court had failed to perform a statutory, nondiscretionary duty to provide a courthouse. Id. at 878-79. The Court rejected that argument because the commissioners court's duty to provide a courthouse is "replete with discretion." Id. at 879. Second, the County Attorney asserted in In re El Paso County Courthouse that the district court had authority to intervene under Article V, Section 8 and Section 24.020 because the commissioners court had acted arbitrarily and had grossly abused its discretion. Id. The Court found that the order was void because the commissioners court had not been given an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing, and thus, had been denied procedural due process. Id. at 879-80. The Court did not address whether the order was also void because the district court's jurisdiction had not been properly invoked. The El Paso County Courthouse opinion next considered whether the trial courts' inherent judicial power, with its attendant aspects of self-preservation and separation of powers, authorized the order. While we emphasized that the separation of powers concept necessitates a doctrine of inherent judicial power to preserve the judicial function, we held that this power may not be exercised in such a fashion as to abrogate the correlative rights of the executive and legislative authorities of our government, for the public is equally protected by the preservation of all three functions. Id. at 881-82. Thus, the Court specifically held that these inherent powers must be properly invoked upon an adequate basis in a safeguarded process. Id. at 882. Because the order had been entered in the absence of procedural due process, we determined that it was void. Id. The Court set aside the void order and dismissed the appeal. Id.