The principle of separation of powers is among the most important safeguards of our democracy. Enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, it establishes three co-equal branches of government – the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary – each with clearly defined powers and responsibilities. Their independence, complemented by a system of checks and balances, ensures that no single branch can exercise excessive or unchecked authority.
This is not merely a constitutional doctrine for lawyers and government officials to debate. It has direct consequences for every Filipino. When power is concentrated in one branch, accountability suffers, public resources become vulnerable to misuse, and citizens risk being deprived of their rights. Good governance requires not only effective leadership but also institutional restraints against the abuse of authority.
Our recent political history offers important lessons.
During the administration of President Benigno Aquino III, the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling declaring the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) unconstitutional demonstrated the importance of judicial independence. The subsequent ruling in Araullo v. Aquino on the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) further affirmed that even the Executive’s pursuit of economic development must remain within constitutional limits. No good intention can justify an unconstitutional exercise of power.
The administration of President Rodrigo Duterte tested institutional independence in other ways. The removal of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno through a controversial quo warranto proceeding, the extension of martial law in Mindanao, and questions surrounding accountability for the government’s anti-drug campaign raised fundamental concerns about the capacity of institutions to exercise independent judgment. Congress, in particular, must not allow political alignment with the President to diminish its constitutional responsibility to scrutinize executive actions.
Under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the importance of these safeguards has again come into sharp focus, particularly in the preparation and enactment of national budgets. The Supreme Court’s Oct. 20, 2026 decision declaring unconstitutional major provisions of the 2024, 2025, and 2026 General Appropriations Acts provides a compelling reminder that even Congress cannot exceed constitutional boundaries.
The Court struck down the ₱449.5-billion increase in unprogrammed appropriations under the 2024 budget and the ₱17.99-billion increase in the 2025 Special Road Fund. It also invalidated two provisions of the 2026 budget. Importantly, it ruled that the constitutional ceiling on appropriations recommended by the President applies to the combined programmed and unprogrammed appropriations.
The Court’s scrutiny of the bicameral conference committee was particularly significant. Its authority, the Court emphasized, extends only to reconciling actual disagreements between the House and Senate versions of a bill. The absence of adequate records explaining budgetary changes and supporting documentation underscored the need for greater transparency and accountability in the legislative process.
The ruling carries a stern warning: the doctrine of operative fact protects beneficiaries who relied in good faith on irreversible government programs, but does not automatically shield the authors, proponents, and implementors of unconstitutional provisions from possible civil, criminal, or administrative liability.
Congress must take this decision to heart. Its power of the purse is not an unrestricted license to manipulate appropriations, circumvent constitutional ceilings, or introduce provisions that evade meaningful public scrutiny. Neither political alliances nor bicameral compromises can supersede the Constitution.
The three branches need not be adversaries. They must cooperate in addressing national challenges. But cooperation must never mean capitulation. Checks and balances are not obstacles to governance; they are indispensable instruments for making it accountable, transparent, and responsive.
Ultimately, the Constitution is not a document to be invoked selectively when politically convenient. It is the supreme law that binds everyone, especially those entrusted with public authority. Congress must remember that its members are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not merely to serve their political parties or protect the administration of the day.
The Filipino people deserve a government in which no branch is above the law. The strength of our democracy is measured not by how much power its leaders can accumulate, but by how faithfully they respect the constitutional limits on that power.
