scholarly journals Measuring Judicial Ideal Points in New Democracies: The Case of the Philippines

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucia Dalla Pellegrina ◽  
Laarni Escresa ◽  
Nuno Garoupa

AbstractThis paper extends the empirical analysis on the determinants of judicial behaviour by measuring the ideal points for the Justices of the Philippine Supreme Court for 1986−2010. The Philippines is an interesting case given the US influence in designing the Supreme Court while the political and social context differs significantly. The estimated ideal points allow us to focus on political coalitions based on presidential appointments. We find strong evidence to support the existence of such coalitions along a government-opposition policy space. Implications for comparative judicial politics are discussed.

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan González Bertomeu ◽  
Lucia Dalla Pellegrina ◽  
Nuno Garoupa

AbstractThis paper presents an estimation of ideal points for the Justices of the Supreme Court of Argentina for 1984–2007. The estimated ideal points allow us to focus on political cycles in the Court as well as possible coalitions based on presidential appointments. We find strong evidence to support the existence of such coalitions in some periods (such as President Carlos Menem’s term) but less so in others (including President Néstor Kirchner’s term, a period of swift turnover in the Court due to impeachment processes and resignations). Implications for comparative judicial politics are discussed.


2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 616-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
Björn Dressel ◽  
Tomoo Inoue

To what extent do informal networks shape the decisions of the Supreme Court of the Philippines? Though often raised in the Philippines, this question has never been studied empirically. To answer it, we constructed a set of social network variables to assess how informal ties, based on university connections and work affiliations, may have influenced the court’s decisions between 1986 and 2015 in 47 politically high-profile cases. Providing statistically significant evidence for the effects of political influence (presidential appointments) and hierarchical pressure (the vote of the Chief Justice) on related networks, our analysis suggests a continuing tension on the Supreme Court bench between professionalism and informality. Because the findings advance both theoretical and empirical understanding of larger issues at the intersection of courts and society throughout the region, we recommend more attention to the role of judicial networks, external to the courts as well as within them.


Author(s):  
Kiara M. Vigil

On March 21, 1910, the Supreme Court of the Philippines issued a ruling in The United States v. The Ilongots Palidat et al., a criminal case prosecuted by the US government against three indigenous men from the island of Luzon. The three men were found guilty of murdering William Jones, an American anthropologist working in the so-called headhunting country of the northernmost Philippines during the previous year. This chapter illuminates the identity of an indigenous intellectual as it intersected with imperial discourses, first in the United States and later in the Philippines. Through an examination of Jones's death, it considers how Gilded Age ideas of race and civilization functioned as a discourse to frame Jones in one way and his Ilongot assailants in another, ultimately producing the tragic misunderstanding between them.


Author(s):  
Christoph Bezemek

This chapter assesses public insult, looking at the closely related question of ‘fighting words’ and the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. While Chaplinsky’s ‘fighting words’ exception has withered in the United States, it had found a home in Europe where insult laws are widely accepted both by the European Court of Human Rights and in domestic jurisdictions. However, the approach of the European Court is structurally different, turning not on a narrowly defined categorical exception but upon case-by-case proportionality analysis of a kind that the US Supreme Court would eschew. Considering the question of insult to public officials, the chapter focuses again on structural differences in doctrine. Expanding the focus to include the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR), it shows that each proceeds on a rather different conception of ‘public figure’.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 39
Author(s):  
Zulfia Hanum Alfi Syahr

The improvement of court’s quality has been done through various efforts, one of them is an accreditation program. Before the implementation of internal accreditation policies, the courts under the Supreme Court had used ISO standards to maintain the service quality. Along with the development of judiciary innovations especially the dream toward the great judiciary, the Supreme Court has developed special accreditation standards for each judicial environment. General Court (Badilum) has implemented the Quality Assurance Accreditation (APM) programme in 7 assessment areas. Afterward, the Religious Courts (Badilag) in addition to 7 APM areas as in Badilum also applied 9 other assessment standards. Furthermore, the Military and Administration Agency (Badilmiltun) has 7 different accreditation assessment areas with Badilum and Badilag. The problem that will be examined is how to determine the ideal criteria for assessing court accreditation. Given that the ideal accreditation standard is not only improving the quality of court services but also being able to meet the needs and expectations of justice seekers, as indicated by the community satisfaction index. The court accreditation standard used today is the adoption of the International Framework of Court excellent (IFCE) and is adapted to the area of Bureaucratic Reform and the oversight function of the Supreme Court. The method of determining accreditation criteria is done by comparing court accreditation standards that have been used with the SERVQUAL model. The SERVQUAL model is an initial model that appears to measure service quality. The results of the study found that a number of court accreditation assessment standards has been represented the dimensions of service quality at SERVQUAL.


2005 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 987-1009
Author(s):  
George M. Sullivan

In two consecutive national elections a conservative, Ronald Reagan, was elected President of the United States. When Justice Lewis Powell announced his retirement during the late months of the Reagan administration, it was apparent that the President's last appointment could shift the ideology of the Court to conservatism for the first time since the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower. President Reagan's prior appointments, Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia, had joined William Rehnquist, an appointee of President Nixon and Bryon White, an appointee of President Kennedy to comprise a vociferous minority of four in many instances, especially cases involving civil rights. The unexpected opportunity for the appointment of a conservative jurist caused great anxiety in the media and in the U.S. Senate, the later having confirmation power over presidential appointments to the Supreme Court. This article examines the consequences of the Senate's confirmation of Justice Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court. The impact, which was immediate and dramatic, indicates that conservative ideology will predominate on major civil rights issues for the remainder of this century.


2012 ◽  
Vol 102 (1) ◽  
pp. 202-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matias Iaryczower ◽  
Matthew Shum

We estimate an equilibrium model of decision making in the US Supreme Court that takes into account both private information and ideological differences between justices. We measure the value of information in the court by the probability that a justice votes differently from how she would have voted without case-specific information. Our results suggest a sizable value of information: in 44 percent of cases, justices' initial leanings are changed by their personal assessments of the case. Our results also confirm the increased politicization of the Supreme Court in the last quarter century. Counterfactual simulations provide implications for institutional design. (JEL D72, D82, D83, K10)


2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Liz Heffernan

The admissibility of unlawfully obtained evidence in criminal proceedings has generated controversy throughout the common law world. In the United States, there has been renewed debate in recent years over the propriety of the judicially-created exclusionary rule as a remedy for violations of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. When defining the scope and purpose of the rule, the US Supreme Court has placed ever increasing emphasis on the likely deterrent effect which suppressing evidence will exert on law enforcement. This article explores the consequent restriction of the exclusionary rule evinced in the contemporary case law including United States v Herring in which the Supreme Court expanded the scope of the so-called "good faith" exception. In conclusion it offers reflection from the perspective of another common law country, Ireland, where the exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence has been the subject of debate.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Sean Morris

In this article, I investigate the nature and origin of the Alien Tort Statute (A TS) and its link and application to the modern conception ofhuman rights. In the recent Kiobel decision, the Supreme Court resurrected the A TS and found that the A TS does not apply to human rights violations outside of the US allegedly committed by foreign-based corporations. The Supreme Court held that the presumption against extraterritorially applies to common law causes of action under the A TS, and no evidence exists that the First Congress wanted the A TS to confer jurisdiction over extraterritorial torts. In the article, Idevelop the notion ofthe color ofhuman rights to demonstrate that human rights itself has become a sort of lex internationalis.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiyoung Kim

While the Constitution of United States had brought a popular democracy and Constitution-based structure of government, the Ancien Regime had been overhauled in new land. The “nobility” as a basis of government was dispelled, and people arose as a main class or pillar of nation. As we take a precept of chaotic years from the Articles of Confederation thorough the Constitution, the earlier ambition was mixed between the diplomatic unity and one strong national government. This context implicates much over the centuries and can also be illustrated with a residue of classic and present practice of international politics. The kind of Kantian ambition for the universal justice on liberty and equality, hence, should wait for more prosperous time afterwards that people tend to be conscious of their basic rights or public good from the arbitrary rule of majority, given our concocted recognition from the kind of public policy ideals from Bentham, “the greatest happiness of greatest number,” and “revolutionary spirit on people.” Given the judicial activism, the Supreme Court justices might be clairvoyant, who would be equipped with goodwill, wisdom and almighty intelligence to assuage an untreatable scope of interests and state specificities. Foreign lawyers would find such ample source of laws in surprise, who might envy a wide coverage of judicial interests. They perhaps would take the US context as the kind of insightful classroom and learn the lessons from their case laws.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document