Separation of powers: Why we need guardrails of democracy

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.

- SONNY COLOMA

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 preempted the political process, thereby creating disequilibrium among the three coequal 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.