Judicial restraint

See - Between independence and subservience





"x x x.

We cannot rely on the “self-restraint” of justices. Whether it was to provide legal cover for the Marcos dictatorship or to prevent GMA from being made accountable for her many crimes, the Court has ruled in service to partisan political interests. The whole point of “checks and balances” is to locate the boundaries of each branch’s action where the action of another branch begins. In the current set-up, there is no “check” on the action of the Court. “Balance” cannot be achieved without conflict.

Because the problems begin with legal construction in the 1987 Constitution, the Constitution at some point has to be amended, a task for lawyers. But legal theory has to begin with a few basic political facts:

• Court justices are not elected, once appointed they cannot be removed except through impeachment or retirement at age 70. They cannot, in other words, be made accountable for their decisions.
• The Court has limited resources for determining the facts of a case on appeal, it leaves that to lower courts. To rule on a government policy where the data requirements are a quantum leap from a case at court, the Court has to rely on the other branches.
• The Court cannot implement its decisions; it has to count on the Executive and Legislative branches.

These are the practical considerations behind the need for inter-branch cooperation even as there is "independence" and "separation of powers."

x x x."