As some lovesick souls would cry, “walang (there’s no) forever.” Apparently, that now applies to boardroom seats, too.

A Makati court has handed the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) a win in its campaign to shake up entrenched boardrooms after the court rejected GMA Network’s attempt to block the regulator’s controversial term-limit rule for independent directors.

The Makati RTC Branch 138 denied GMA’s plea to stop the implementation of SEC Memorandum Circular 7, which imposes a cumulative nine-year cap on the terms of independent directors of listed firms.                                   

The rule, which took effect in February, counts a director’s service from 2012 to prevent so-called “independent” directors from becoming permanent fixtures on the boards they are supposed to objectively oversee. 

Translation: the era of “forever independent” directors may finally be nearing its expiration date.

GMA had argued the SEC had exceeded its authority in imposing the cap and sought to suspend the circular while the case was being heard. The court, however, was unconvinced, ruling that the company failed to show it would suffer grave and irreparable injury if the rule stayed in force.

The RTC brushed aside concerns over replacing long-serving directors, describing the issue as merely an “administrative inconvenience” rather than a legal injury serious enough to justify stopping a government regulation.

More notably, the court’s language suggested little sympathy for companies resisting the board-refresh rule.

“The Philippine capital market cannot remain globally uncompetitive simply because a single corporation finds the vital task of board renewal administratively inconvenient,” the ruling read, while noting that many listed companies had already complied with the SEC directive.

Under the circular, directors who hit the nine-year limit are not entirely barred from staying on the board — they just lose the “independent” label and may continue as regular directors.

As for now, listed firms resisting board turnovers may have to confront a new regulatory reality: independence comes with an expiration date.