Two decisions of the Philippine Supreme Court on Senate inquiries in aid of legislation are the latest in a string of decisions that stretch Rodrigo Duterte’s pristine winning record before the Supreme Court. This record upholds every act by the former President, such as sanctioning the burial of Ferdinand Marcos, Sr. in a cemetery for heroes. The Supreme Court removed its own Chief Justice, watered down checks on the exercise of emergency powers, defended Duterte’s refusal to disclose the state of his health in violation of a constitutional directive, and sanctioned the Philippines’ withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) on a technicality. One study found that the probability of Duterte appointees voting in favor of his administration is significantly higher than that of justices voting for the administrations of his predecessors who appointed them.
In the cases regarding Senate inquiries in aid of legislation, the Supreme Court went to outrageous lengths that defied both logic and precedent to secure every legal victory for Duterte. The effect of the Court’s decisions is to create an image of a judicial system that disregards its own prior rulings and crafts new rules with every case. Philippine jurisprudence is now a rules mutable game akin to Calvinball.
The Supreme Court’s Calvinball approach is the antithesis of stare decisis. The Court’s decisions unsettle legal doctrines and strip case law of predictability and other benefits that flow from respect for precedent.
It is true that jurisprudence is not cast in stone, but abandoning doctrine is the exception, not the rule, and can only be done when justified by strong and compelling reasons.10 In contrast, the Court’s approach dodges precedent at almost every opportunity.