The Supreme Court’s July 2025 ruling voiding the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte brings into sharp focus the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.

The decision, focusing on the constitutional rule that only one impeachment proceeding may be initiated per official per year, underscores how the resolution of procedural issues can tilt the balance of power and trigger perceptions of partisanship.

Opposition to the decision has been expressed, and appears to be gaining momentum. The High Court’s intervention has raised concerns that the judicial branch may have pre-empted the political process, thereby creating disequilibrium among the three co-equal branches of government.

The principle of separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches lies at the heart of democratic governance.

Designed to prevent the concentration and abuse of power, it depends not only on constitutional design but on institutional discipline and mutual respect. When that equilibrium is disturbed, through excess, omission, or political maneuvering, governance suffers and democratic stability is put at risk.

History offers cautionary tales.

The 1972 declaration of martial law by President Ferdinand Marcos, Sr. remains the most extreme example. The executive branch assumed control over both legislative and judicial functions, leading to a long period of authoritarian rule. With Congress effectively shut down and the Supreme Court opting for deference, democratic mechanisms collapsed.

It took the 1986 People Power Revolution, an extraordinary civic uprising, to restore constitutional order. This was brought about by a sense of hopelessness among the broad masses of the people.

Recall the dramatic chain of events from the walkout of computer technicians at the height of the counting of votes for the snap presidential elections, that led to the call for a boycott of commercial establishments closely identified with the administration. The groundswell of disenchantment swelled. A mammoth Tagumpay ng Bayan rally led by “losing” candidate Cory Aquino was held at the Luneta on Feb. 16, 1986. Then she went to Cebu to lead similar protest actions.

It was while she was in Cebu on Saturday, Feb. 22, 1986, that the tandem of then Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and AFP Vice Chief of Staff and Philippine Constabulary Chief General Fidel Ramos declared their breakaway from the Marcos regime. Heeding Cardinal Sin’s call, Butz Aquino led a group of protesters who assembled in Cubao from which they proceeded to Camp Aguinaldo to manifest support for the Enrile-Ramos forces.

On Tuesday, Feb. 25, 1986, Cory Aquino took her oath as president in Club Filipino in Greenhills, San Juan, adjacent to Camp Crame. Meanwhile, Marcos was also sworn in as President in Malacañang. It was subsequently revealed that by this time, the Marcos family had been preparing to leave the country and on Feb. 26, they arrived in Hawaii to begin their exile.

In 2001, the impeachment trial of President Joseph Estrada collapsed amid allegations of evidence suppression. The Senate’s refusal to open a controversial envelope triggered EDSA Dos, a second extra-constitutional transfer of power. Again, formal democratic processes gave way to street-level mobilization when institutions failed to resolve a political crisis credibly.

More recently, the ouster in May 2018 of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, ordered by the Supreme Court through a quo warranto petition rather than an impeachment trial, sparked debate over judicial independence and constitutional fidelity. While the process may have passed legal muster, critics opine that its political overtones cast doubt on whether the principle of checks and balances was genuinely upheld, or selectively applied.

Into this historical context comes the Supreme Court’s July 2025 ruling voiding the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte.

Citing the constitutional rule that only one impeachment proceeding may be initiated per official per year, the decision underscores how the resolution of procedural issues can generate widespread controversy. The High Court’s intervention has raised concerns that the judicial branch may have pre-empted the political process, possibly creating disequilibrium between the judiciary and Congress.

Critics warn that the ruling may embolden political actors to game the system, while others believe that an impasse may sharpen political conflicts and draw clearer lines of engagement in the runup to the 2028 presidential elections.

Either way, the High Court’s decision highlights the fragility of the balance of power and its vulnerability to challenges, even if there may be an abundance of good intentions on the part of the key protagonists.

Hence, the pressing question has been raised. Can a win-win situation still be realistically attained?

In my view, the answer lies not in extra-constitutional upheavals. A win-win scenario is attainable only when all three branches operate within their constitutional bounds. More important is the exercise of restraint needed to resolve differences. Ultimately, it depends on public trust that is fostered by exemplary leaders.

Avoiding further political instability demands a renewal of commitment to democratic norms, not just procedures. It requires lawmakers to be meticulous, judges to be impartial, and executive officials to be transparent. It also calls on civil society to become actively engaged, not just during crises but as part of a healthy, functioning democracy.

History shows the perils of imbalance. The present situation reminds us that equilibrium, once disrupted, may take time to restore. Clearly, it is imperative for a vigilant citizenry to rally behind principled leadership that is capable of steering the nation toward a shared, stable future.

Comments may be sent to [email protected]