THE JUDICIALIZATION OF POLITICS IN THE PHILIPPINES AND SOUTHEAST-ASIA

In Afro-Asia, outside India, it may be that only in the Philippines is the judicialization of politics a significant, current political deve lopment. Several factors-liberal democracy, separation of powers, a po litics 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 po litics possible or even likely. The current Constitution assigns the j udiciary new and expanded powers and responsibilities, giving it great potential to judicialize policy processes that would otherwise be the responsibility of majoritarian 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 en gaged in a ''grave abuse or 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 judicialization of post- Marcos Philippine politics. (Decisions handed down by the Court during 1990-91 will be examined here for such evidence.) However, a developi ng 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.