Abstract

This article examines the Philippine legal culture by highlighting the politics of the Philippine constitutional amendment in 1946-47 and the centrality of the role of judicial review in this process. As this paper shows, the role of the judiciary as ‘the final arbiter of law’ is hinged on this institution’s independence; however, judicial independence was problematic at this juncture in Philippine history. The Philippine Supreme Court, through its power of judicial review, failed to stand for constitutionalism and demonstrated a lack of judicial independence. Employing textual and historical analyses, this paper analyzes the Philippine Supreme Court’s decisions on cases relevant to the constitutional amendment, their precedents, and the history and politics of the amendment. It argues that the decisions on the constitutional amendment cases demonstrate a legal culture of judges and politicians that developed under colonial conditions where norms of legality highlight judicialization of politics and politicization of the judiciary.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.