Impeachment in the Philippines: Politics, Institutions and Leadership

Abstract

<p>The use of impeachment in removing judges has become a feature of fledgling democracies such as the Philippines. Designed as a mechanism of accountability, impeachment of judges in the highest court, the Supreme Court, has become a tool for consolidating strongman rule. Constitutional guarantees in the 1987 Philippine Constitution were meant to safeguard judicial independence and prevent political assault on the judiciary. The 2018 removal from office of Maria Lourdes Sereno, the first woman Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court, however, provokes us to rethink our assumptions about the power of the judiciary within constitutional democracy. Often regarded as the weakest branch of government, the judiciary does not possess the power of coercion and is dependent on the executive or the legislative branches of government for enforcement or compliance. The democratisation movement that swept many parts of the world in the 1980s brought a new salience for courts in policing constitutional overreach and abuses of power that have been the hallmark of authoritarian regimes. Constitutional developments that granted courts review powers and autonomy have created opportunities for judiciaries to test the efficacy of their authority and reshape their relations with political actors. But the courts' contributions in consolidating democracy and forging the rule of law in democratising countries have been uneven. They sometimes perform as activist courts, but at other times, they acquiesce to executive whims or preferences. More often, the court's authority is under constant challenge or threatened.</p>