Introduction

The 2018 removal from office of Maria Lourdes Sereno, the first woman chief justice of the Philippine Supreme Court, provokes us to rethink our assumptions about the power of the judiciary within the democratic system of government. The judiciary is often regarded as the weakest branch of government, having no power of coercion and being dependent on the executive or the legislative branches of government for enforcement or compliance. The democratization movement that swept many parts of the world in the 1980s brought a new salience for courts in policing constitutional overreach and abuse of power that had been the hallmark of authoritarian regimes (Ginsburg 2003). Constitutional developments that granted courts review powers and autonomy have created opportunities for the judiciaries to test the efficacy of their authority and reshape their relations with political actors. Courts’ performances in consolidating democracy and forging the rule of law in democratizing countries have been uneven; their authority has also been constantly challenged or under threat.

The seeming rise of illiberal democracies in contemporary times has put the judiciary under greater stress. How courts relate to political actors and respond to political pressures or demands has become even more critical for countries where liberal democracy is constantly challenged. In the Philippines, the 2016 ascendance to power of Rodrigo Duterte ushered in a march towards illiberal democracy. The judiciary and judicial actors have become focal points for political contestation. In a country that had previously overthrown an authoritarian regime (that of Ferdinand Marcos in 1986), the Supreme Court was known to have resisted attempts at illiberal revival, despite the highs and lows of its democratic consolidation process (Deinla and Dressel 2019). The court and the judiciary have been regarded as “beacons of democracy” since the promulgation of the democratic 1987 Philippine Constitution.

When members of the Philippine Supreme Court removed their own chief justice in May 2018 through a quo warranto procedure that aligned with presidential intentions, did this mean that the court has become acquiescent to the power of the executive? In practical terms, why would a court that has gained so much power become so readily compliant with presidential wishes? Is the loss of judicial independence simply a function of executive pressure or dominance?