Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T06:16:27.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Philippine Supreme Court and Regime Response, 1970-2000

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2015

Stacia L. Haynie  and
Tao L. Dumas
Tao L. Dumas
Affiliation:
University at Albany – SUNY, Albany, NY 12222, USA, E-mail: tdumas@albany.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The behaviour of appellate courts has long fascinated scholars. Specifically, scholars have been attentive to the effect of the political context on judicial outcomes. This paper focuses on the decision-making of the Philippine Supreme Court (“Court”) over multiple decades with particular attention to the influence of changes in the executive branch on the outcomes of cases brought to the Court. The analysis evaluates the decisions of the Court from 1970 through 2000, encompassing the turmoil of the Marcos years through the first few years of the tumultuous tenure of Joseph Estrada. We test the hypothesis, grounded in Galanter’s seminal work, that the government has substantial advantages in the legal system and thus enjoys greater success than other litigants. The government has theoretically unlimited resources with which to litigate, control over the staffing of the bench, and authority over, or at least major influence on, the laws that the courts interpret. As a result, the government is expected to win the majority of the challenges that come before the Court. The Philippines provides an excellent laboratory to test this thesis. In the Marcos era the Court faced a dictator professing “constitutional authoritarianism” whose regime ultimately was toppled by the People Power Revolution. His successor, Corazon Aquino, was initially embraced as the popular wife of an assassinated hero, Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr., but later faced a series of attempts to topple her regime. President Fidel Ramos served for 6 years leading the nation through a period of economic growth. Elected by a wide margin in 1998, President Joseph Estrada quickly lost the confidence of the Filipino people as well as the business and military sectors. By 2001, he was removed from office through political actions which some consider the People Power II. This analysis evaluates the winners and losers before the Philippine Supreme Court across the tenures of these presidencies with particular focus on the ability of the Filipino government to succeed when compared to individuals and businesses and the success of different regimes over time as the executive’s popularity surges and wanes. The results suggest, that like other institutions, the Philippine Supreme Court responded to the rise and fall of the personal politics that dominates the distribution of power in this Asian archipelago.

Keywords

appellate court behaviourPhilippine Supreme Courtregime response1970-2000
Type
Articles
Information
Asian Journal of Comparative Law , Volume 9: Special Issue: Socio-Legal Research on Southeast Asia: Themes, Directions, and Challenges , 1 January 2014 , pp. 173 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Hernandez, Carolina G., “Constitutional Authoritarianism and the Prospects of Democracy in the Philippines” (1985) 38 Journal of International Affairs 243.Google Scholar

2 See Kritzer, Herbert M., “The Government Gorilla: Why Does Government Come Out Ahead in Appellate Courts?” in Kritzer, Herbert M. & Silbey, Susan, eds., In Litigation: Do the ‘Haves’ Still Come Out Ahead? (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996) at 342.Google Scholar

3 Lasswell, Harold D., Politics: Who Gets What, When, How (New York: P. Smith, 1950)Google Scholar.

4 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Emile (London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1911, translated by Foxley, Barbara) at 148.Google Scholar

5 Galanter, Marc, “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change” (1974) 9 Law & Soc’y Rev. 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Ibid. at 99.

7 Ibid. at 103.

8 Ibid. at 120.

9 Supra note 2.

10 Shapiro, Martin, Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1981).Google Scholar

11 Ibid. at 2.

12 Ibid. at 5.

13 Ibid. at 1.

14 Shapiro interchangeably uses the terms “state” (e.g., at 65), “regime” (e.g., at 24, 26, 27, 34), “political system” (e.g., at 20), “central authorities” (e.g., at 23), and “government” (e.g., at 24, 28). Like Shapiro, the state, for our purposes, refers to the political regime or authority to which the judicial function is tied. We are not referring to the broader political order that persists beyond ruling regimes. We are focused on the Court’s response to particular political regimes as a function of the triadic structure which ties the judges to the regime.

15 Ibid. at 65.

16 Ibid. at 63.

17 Supra note 5 at 111.

18 Supra note 10 at 49.

19 Ibid. at vii.

20 Galanter, Marc, Competing Equalities: Law and the Backward Classes in India (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

21 Sidney Silliman, G., “Dispute Processing by the Philippine Agrarian Court” (1981) 16 Law & Soc’y Rev. 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Ibid. at 107.

23 Ibid. at 109.

24 Neal Tate, C. & Haynie, Stacia L., “The Philippine Supreme Court under Authoritarian and Democratic Rule: The Perceptions of the Justices” (1994) 22 Asian Profile 209.Google Scholar

25 Ibid. at 220.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid.

29 Haynie, Stacia L., “Resource Inequalities and Litigation Outcomes in the Philippine Supreme Court” (1994) 56 Journal of Politics 752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Ibid.

31 Supra note 24.

32 Supra note 29 at 763.

33 Supra note 29 and Haynie, Stacia L., “Resource Inequalities and Regional Variation in Litigation Outcomes in the Philippine Supreme Court, 1961-1986” (1995) 48 Political Research Quarterly 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 Supra note 29 at 769.

35 Supra note 33.

36 It is also the case that RPs may win by losing if the precedent established in the losing outcome creates a more favourable trajectory for the government’s interests than prior decisions even if the outcome itself is a loss. However, we are not analysing the content of the opinion for its adherence to or divergence from past precedent. Like other scholars evaluating Galanter’s thesis (see for example, Wheeler, Stanton, et al., “Do the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts, 1870-1970” (1987) 21 Law & Soc’y Rev. 403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Songer, Donald R. & Sheehan, Reginald S., “Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States” (1992) 36 American Journal of Political Science 235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Songer, Donald R. et al., “Do the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead Over Time? Applying Galanter’s Framework to Decisions of Apepals, 1925-1988” (1999) 33 Law & Soc’y Rev. 811 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sheehan, Reginald S., “Ideology, Status, and the Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court” 86 American Political Science Review 464 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sheehan, Reginald S. & Randazzo, Kirk A., “Explaining Litigant Success in the High Court of Australia” (2012) 47 Australian Journal of Political Science 239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar among many others), we are only analysing winners and losers in terms of the affirmance or reversal of the lower court outcome. We concede that contradictions between the winner of the outcome and the winner of the precedent are possible in the results, but we suggest those results would be the exception rather than the rule. Subsequent analysis should evaluate the role of precedent in the Court’s opinion rather than outcomes alone, but that analysis is beyond the scope of this study.

37 Neal Tate, C. & Haynie, Stacia L., “Authoritarianism and the Function of Courts: A Time Series Analysis of the Philippine Supreme Court, 1961-1987” (1993) 27 Law & Soc’y Rev. 712.Google Scholar

38 The High Courts Data Base was created with support from the Law and Social Science Program of the United States National Science Foundation (see Stacia L. Haynie, Louisiana State University; C. Neal Tate, University of North Texas; Reginald Sheehan, Michigan State University; Donald Songer, University of South Carolina, “Fitting More Pieces into the Puzzle of Judicial Behavior: A Multi-Country Data Base and Program of Research” (2000) National Science Foundation (SES #9975237) and Stacia L. Haynie, Louisiana State University; C. Neal Tate, University of North Texas; Reginald Sheehan, Michigan State University; Donald Songer, University of South Carolina, “Extending a Multi-Country Data Base and Program of Research” (2002-2006) National Science Foundation (SES #0137055). The High Courts Data Base is available at <http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/poli/juri/highcts.htm> (last accessed 20 January 2014).

39 Supreme Court Reports Annotated (Manila: Central Book Supply, Inc., 1970-2000).

40 See Bolongaita, Emil P. Jr., “The Philippines in 1999: Balancing Restive Democracy and Recovering Economy” (2000) 40 Asian Survey 70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Ruland, Jurgen, “Constitutional Debates in the Philippines: From Presidentialism to Parliamentarianism?” (2003) 13 Asian Survey 468.Google Scholar

41 Bolongaita, Ibid. at 70.

42 Abueva, Jose Veloso, “The Philippines: Tradition and Change” (1970) 10 Asian Survey 62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 See Tilman, Robert O., “The Philippines in 1970: A Difficult Decade Begins” (1971) 11 Asian Survey 139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Lindsey, Charles W., “Economic Crisis in the Philippines” 24 Asian Survey 1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 Noble, Lela G., “Muslim Separatism in the Philippines, 1972-1981: The Making of a Stalemate” (1981) 21 Asian Survey 1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Thompson, Mark R., “Off the Endangered List: Philippine Democratization in Comparative Perspective” (1996) 28 Comparative Politics 182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46 Overholt, William H., “The Rise and Fall of Ferdinand Marcos” (1986) 26 Asian Survey 1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 Lindsey, supra note 43.

48 Supra note 42 at 61.

49 See Abueva, Jose Veloso, “Filipino Democracy and the American Legacy” (1976) 428 Annals of the American Academy of Political Science 114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Haynie, Stacia L., “Politicization of the Judiciary: The Philippines Supreme Court and the Post Marcos Era” (1998) 22 Asian Studies Review 459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50 Brillantes, Alex B. Jr., “The Philippines in 1992: Ready for Take Off?” (1993) 33 Asian Survey 224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 Thompson, Mark R., “Presidentas and People Power in Comparative Asian Perspective” (2007) 28 Philippine Political Science Journal 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52 Supra note 50 at 225.

53 Neal Tate, C., “The Judicialization of Politics in the Philippines and Southeast Asia” (1994) 15 International Political Science Review 191.Google Scholar

54 Timberman, David G., “The Philippines in 1990: On Shaky Ground” (1991) 31 Asian Survey 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55 Ibid. at 158.

56 Supra note 24.

57 Supra note 50 at 225.

58 Riedinger, Jeffrey, “The Philippines in 1993: Halting Steps Toward Liberalization” (1993) 34 Asian Survey 142.Google Scholar

59 Ibid. at 144.

60 Ruland, supra note 40 at 466.

61 Ibid.

62 Reid, Ben, “The Philippine Democratic Uprising and the Contradictions of Neoliberalism: EDSA II” (2001) 22 Third World Quarterly 785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

63 Montinola, Gabriella R., “The Philippines in 1998: Opportunity Amid Crisis” (1999) 39 Asian Survey 64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64 Hernandez, Carolina G., “The Philippines in 1995: Growth Amid Challenges” (1995) 36 Asian Survey 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65 Ibid. at 145.

66 Bolongaita, supra note 40 at 68.

67 Ibid. at 68-69.

68 Logistic regression analysis assumes that observations are independent of one another. One concern with the data in this analysis is that attributes of each year may create dependence among the observations, resulting in a correlation among the error terms. To control for any potential estimation bias, we generate robust standard errors, clustering on the year.

69 Supra note 29 and supra note 33.

70 See Neal Tate, C. & Vallinder, Torbjorn, The Global Expansion of Judicial Power (New York: New York University Press, 1995)Google Scholar and Haynie, supra note 49.

71 Segal, Jeffrey A. & Spaeth, Harold J., The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72 Helmke, Gretchen, “Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making” (2002) 96 American Political Science Review 305 Google Scholar and Helmke, Gretchen, Courts under Constraints. Judges, Generals, and Presidents in Argentina (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

73 Arriola, Sarah Lou Ysmael & Mandocdoc, Dan Kevin C., “Defining the Parameters of Judicial Independence and Accountability in Light of Chief Justice Corona’s Impeachment: An Examination of the Violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct as a Ground for Betrayal of Public Trust” (2012) 56 Ateneo Law Journal 761.Google Scholar

74 Abueva, supra note 49 at 114.

75 Supra note 29 and supra note 33.

76 Haynie, supra note 49.

77 See Mishler, William & Sheehan, Reginald S., “The Supreme Court as a Countermajoritarian Institution? The Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decision” (1993) 87 American Political Science Review 87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mishler, William & Sheehan, Reginald S., “Public Opinion, the Attitudinal Model and Supreme Court Decision Making: A Micro-Analytic Perspective” (1996) 58 Journal of Politics 169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Flemming, Roy B. & Dan Wood, B., “The Public and the Supreme Court: Individual Justice Responsiveness to American Policy Moods” (1997) 41 American Journal of Political Science 468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar