Suchergebnisse

Analyzes how the breakdown of Philippine democracy was reflected in the decision-making agenda of the Supreme Court, drawing on 15,190 Supreme Court decisions, 1961-1987, & recent theory on the relationship between law & democratization. The Philippine Supreme Court before the breakdown of democracy is described as one of the most independent & powerful in the world. However, at the end of 10 years of dictatorial rule by Ferdinand Marcos in 1986, the court was widely believed to be subservient, narrow, & timid by most Filipinos. Findings indicate that, during the breakdown of democracy, the court increasingly dodged controversial political or constitutional issues, preferring to allow supposedly neutral government officials to make judgments on these issues. This finding is consistent with J. J. Linz's (1978) theory of the legal system's contributions to the breakdown of democracy in any given country. 1 Table, 3 Figures, 1 Photograph, 34 References. Adapted from the source document.

An introduction to a special journal issue (see abstracts of related articles) addresses the relationship between democracy & law. Because political liberties lie at the center of most definitions of democracy, law naturally lies at the center of its requirements. Most theorists understand the respect for the rule of law as a fundamental basis of a democratic culture that, if not present, may pose significant problems for the construction & maintenance of democratic institutions in a given society. Also important for the maintenance of the rule of law is a set of institutions, usually courts, assigned the task of interpreting the law & adjudicating disagreements. Some scholars have questioned the role of the courts in sustaining respect for the law, however, empirical data indicate that their role in democratic government has increased in recent years. This journal issue is meant to draw attention to the role of a legal culture in larger democratic cultures & suggest new strands of thought for future theoretical & empirical research. 9 References. D. M. Smith

In Afro-Asia, outside India, it may be that only in the Philippines is the judicialization of politics a significant, current political development. Several factors—liberal democracy, separation of powers, a politics of rights, interest group and opposition use of the courts, and frequently ineffective majoritarian institutions with limited public respect—make substantial judicialization of contemporary Philippine politics possible or even likely. The current Constitution assigns the judiciary new and expanded powers and responsibilities, giving it great potential to judicial ize policy processes that would otherwise be the responsibility of majori tarian institutions. The constitutional grant of authority given the Supreme Court provides a foundation for it to substitute its judgment for that of any government official who has engaged in a "grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction." Activist judicial attitudes have led to Supreme Court decisions that can be cited as evidence for a judicial ization of post-Marcos Philippine politics. (Decisions handed down by the Court during 1990-91 will be examined here for such evidence.) However, a developing appointment pattern that places career judges on the Supreme Court may reduce the likelihood of continuing judicialization, since, in the Philippines, such appointees have been more likely to be restraintist than have justices with different, more partisan, careers.

This study seeks to advance understanding about the recruit ment of judges to the appellate courts in Great Britain, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, from the ranks of those serving in the higher British judiciary between 1876 and 1972. Beginning with a litera ture search to support theory construction to the topic, it postulates a set of interrelated hypotheses explaining this recruitment and states these hypotheses formally and in a causal model. The model is then empirically estimated against data on the background and attributes of the 317 individuals serving in the higher British judiciary from 1876 to 1972. The model confirms well-known propositions about how one advances within the British judiciary, but also documents surprisingly large effects on recruitment for the judges' family social status.