The Role of Judicial Review in the Anti-Corruption Agenda in the Philippines: The Case of the Pork Barrel System

Judicial review has been under attack for being anti-democratic since a non-representative and unaccountable court interprets and enforces the constitution. Critics of judicial review, particularly the popular constitutionalists, argue that the legitimate interpretation of the constitution can only come from the people, by themselves or through their representatives in the government. This case study investigates the role of judicial review in the anti-corruption agenda of abolishing the Pork Barrel System in the Philippines. The Pork Barrel System refers to collective body of rules and practices that facilitated political corruption by providing pork funds to individual politicians – legislators and the President – and granting them control over said funds in violation of several constitutional principles. The case is unique because it presents a situation wherein resort to the representative or political branches of the government proved to be difficult, if not inutile, and resort to the judiciary through judicial review proved to be an available and adequate means to advance the anti-corruption agenda. Using a qualitative case-based research design with legal analysis, and contextual description as research tools, this study demonstrates how judicial review can be a change agent and a human rights mechanism.