Resource Inequalities and Litigation Outcomes in the Philippine Supreme Court

Stacia L. Haynie

報告人：黃適文

120100324

The goal of this paper

• The author argues that the court in unindustrialized countries wishes to preserve its legitimacy.

• Therefore, instead of favoring the “have”, the court must balance the interest of the “have nots”

2

Why Philippine?

• The Philippine Supreme Court’s docket, unlike its American counterpart, contains many routine decisions

• The Philippine Supreme Court decides four to five times as many decisions as the US Supreme Court, from 500 to 700 cases or more per term year

3

Why Philippine?

• A longitudinal analysis over a 26-year period that the results do not reflect idiosyncratic conditions

• The justices appointed to the bench are aware of the plight of the poor (qualitative research)

4

Model

5

6

Analysis and findings

• The coefficient for legal forum is significant

• Cases involving creditor/debtor, landlord/tenant, labor/management, and workers’ compensation disputes significantly increase the likelihood of success for the petitioner

7

Analysis and findings

• Superior legal rights significant increase the likelihood of the petitioner losing

• Big winner is the individual, the likelihood of success is positive and significant if the petitioner is the individual

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Issue advantage comparison

• Individual do better than corporations in 4 of 6 categories, better than the government in 3 of 6 categories

• significantly different than the findings for the US or the British Court of Appeal

15

Longitudinal analysis

• During the Marcos years, and especially during the martial law period the Philippine Supreme Court’s reputation suffered

16

17

Regression equation

18

19

20

Conclusion

• The appellate law can serve a redistributive function for society that can potentially enhance its legitimacy as a political institution.

• To enhance the stability of the court in society, decisions are rendered that favor with less, and this likelihood increases as the Court’s legitimacy is threatened.

21