Molding Jurisprudence?
Dynamics between the Philippine Judiciary and the International Development Law Organization (IDLO)
Christian Arvie G. Doria
States have perpetually put a premium on justice and are obligated to highly regard the rule of law as an enabling institution for citizens to exercise their rights and liberties. Intimately linked with sovereign states are judiciaries who function as the adjudicator of laws and the establisher of what constitutes as justice. Therefore, judiciaries operate from the impetuses of impartiality and independence. Contrary to the preceding concept, international legal organizations are closely linked with the Philippine judiciary. The country’s justice system has cultivated deep-running roots with the International Development Law Organization (IDLO) dating back to 1989 where the Rome-based organization cooperates with Philippine judicial bodies in training prosecutors and coordinating Philippine legal development with international standards. Thus, it is imperative to dissect and assess the imprint of IDLO on the Philippine justice system through the positive and adverse dimensions of its involvement.
Fortification of judicial capacity
Among IDLO’s direct involvement with the country’s justice system are its training initiatives in enhancing the legal skills and practices of prosecutors from the Office of the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice. As a member party of the IDLO, Filipino prosecutors enjoy perks such as access to symposiums on the best legal practices from other nations, legal lectures, course modules, and trainer handbooks (IDLO, 2017a). Further, the Department of Foreign Affairs formally acknowledges IDLO’s capacity-building programs for Philippine judicial agencies on formulating gender-sensitive legislation, enhancing prosecutorial institutional capacity, and investigating humanitarian and environmental cases (The Philippine Embassy in The Netherlands, 2022).
Within this dynamic, the Philippine government recognizes the expert authority of IDLO in the realm of legal development. Operating from a diplomatically recognized authority, IDLO smoothly influences and imprints on the legal writing, investigative methods, and practices of Filipino prosecutors. One of IDLO’s manifestations is the shift from lengthy resolutions and archaic vocabulary to a simplified writing style among the prosecutors it trained (IDLO, 2017b). As evidenced by the testimony of an Ombudsman prosecutor, IDLO also inculcated the principle of determining and integrating only the essential issues and answers in case pleadings as opposed to plugging all the relevant factors in the case (IDLO, 2017b).
From such circumstances, IDLO molds Filipino prosecutors to conform to what its legal experts deem as the best practices in the judiciary. While this manifestation highlights the organization’s efforts to influence the Philippine judicial system at the micro-level through the base prosecutors, it also implants a work culture among prosecutors which can be passed to junior prosecutors and endure in the organization moving forward. If IDLO’s prescribed practices translate to effective and efficient work delivery, legal firms and other governmental legal offices might adopt the judiciary’s practices which furthers IDLO’s influential reach.
Liberalization of access to justice
Fundamental to IDLO’s mandates as an international legal organization is the widening of the judiciary’s perspective on justice by shedding light on ignored or underdeveloped issue areas in the legal system. Consistent with Barnett and Finnmore’s (2004) stipulation that international organizations (IO) possess the power to “orient action and establish boundaries for acceptable action,” IDLO asserts the importance of the judiciary in championing environmental protection, women empowerment, and the rights of indigenous people. IDLO conducts training sessions and publishes reports that advocate for culture-specific dispute resolution styles and informal justice systems to accommodate the fragmented cultures in the archipelago, especially among indigenous communities. Further, IDLO publishes its recommendations for Filipino prosecutors and legislators to champion specific SDG goals. To advance SDGs 5 (Gender Equality) and 13 (Climate Action), IDLO published “Climate Justice for Women And Girls: A Rule of Law Approach to Feminist Climate Action” which urges member countries to empower women and informal justice systems by striking discriminatory laws down and encouraging the environmental rights of climate-vulnerable communities, especially indigenous women [IDLO, 2022].
Within this function, IDLO exercises moral authority which augments the legitimacy of the organization. Precise to this point is Dellmuth, Scholte, and Tallberg’s (2019) conception that the ‘performance’ or consequences of an international organization’s directive actions serve as the impetus for the organization’s legitimacy. By convention, when prosecutors and judges recognize the moral value and impact of IDLO’s advocacies in forwarding justice, their sympathies might align with IDLO’s definitions of what is just and fair in the society. Perhaps, one fundamental implication in IDLO’s calls-to-action is its encouragement of judicial activism when existing laws or policies debilitate the legal development organization’s advocacies. When a court ruling has the power to interpret and reestablish the significance of provisions under the law, the judiciary can exert due influence on deeming actions that are inconsistent with IDLO’s advocacies as unconstitutional. Subsequently, the commitment of such adjudged acts would be significantly curbed and prosecuted in an ideal legal system.
Institutional alignment to international commitments
IDLO extends its influence by monitoring and aiding the Philippine judiciary in upholding the country’s commitment to United Nations’ (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). IDLO intensified its efforts in addressing the corruption permeating Philippine courts to discipline prosecutors in adhering to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, & Inclusive Societies). Crucial for this goal is a clean and effective judiciary with competent prosecutors. IDLO’s anti-corruption initiatives consisted of eight training workshops from 2016 to 2017 and a symposium that covered the ideal practices in the prosecution of cases against public officials to address the Ombudsman’s lack of regular judicial training (IDLO, 2017c). Further, IDLO’s joint program with the UN Department of Social and Economic Affairs delivered seminars geared towards institutional resilience, effectiveness and accountability, conflict prevention, corruption prevention, and inclusive and responsive policy formulation for judges and prosecutors. The series of seminars seek to influence legal and justice system attitudes in Philippine courts with regard to the technical skills and expertise of the Ombudsman’s lawyers. Cumulatively, these efforts provide stabilized grounds and knowledge for the Philippine courts to make strides toward an inclusive and accessible justice system as targeted by the UN.
By virtue of acting as a trainer for Filipino prosecutors, IDLO assumes a delegated authority tasked with enhancing the judicial capacity, and. This can be construed as a de-facto exception to the perceived independence of the Ombudsman and the judiciary where it delegates the improvement of the skills of actors within the justice system to IDLO in recognition of the ethicality and rationality of its procedures. However, Barnett and Finnmore (2004) posit that this delegation should always heed to the dynamic that the delegators benefit from and are served by the services of the international organization.
International organizations of IDLO’s nature can never exert excessive influence over the legal system of the Philippines at the expense of the judiciary’s invincibility against external influences. This delegatory relationship also limits IOs’ influence merely to the extent that Philippine judicial bodies allow. As opposed to the Philippines’ membership in the World Trade Organization and other economic trade cooperations, IDLO does not have the power to order penalties if the Philippines refuses to introduce legal reforms that would advance the SDGs or IDLO’s areas of concern.
Several factors could delineate why this dynamic is maintained, partly due to the IO’s background and another due to the perceived superiority of the state.
Perpetuation of Western jurisprudence
A major contention among developing countries with regard to the involvement of IO’s in their affairs is the tendency of the latter to advance Western ideologies. In this particular case, allegations of bias against the UN could carry over to the IDLO due to its close association with the UN’s SDG framework. Sadiku (n.d.) positions the pursuit of UN’s SDGs as “a contemporary method of cultural colonization, weakly disguised as modernization.” By association, IDLO’s programs could be construed as vehicles for the Westernization of an Asian country’s justice system and jurisprudence under the veil of adhering to the targets of the SDGs.
From this, it might be adjudged that the IDLO’s Western predisposition is merely weakly linked to its association with the UN SDGs. However, the composition of IDLO’s board members could further augment the case. IDLO’s Senior Leadership Team dominantly consists of European directors and merely supplemented by a council of legal experts from Africa (IDLO, n.d.). The lack of representation from developing countries in the organization’s upper echelon might cast doubts over the suitability of IDLO’s programs directed at developing countries.
A threat to sovereignty?
Ombudsman chief Conchita Carpio Morales asserts the independence of The Office of the Ombudsman from any external influences as the prime reinforcer of laws and postulates the Ombudsman’s independence from the manipulation of any personalities (IDLO, 2020). However, though limited, the IDLO undeniably introduces soft reforms among the country’s prosecutors. Though the impact of IDLO’s advocacies on the number of disposed cases related to the aforementioned areas cannot be concretized due to the lack of pertinent literature on the matter, the mere fact that the organization exposes the judiciary to issues that it determines as areas of urgent concern can be a critical point to the complete independence of the judiciary. IDLO’s efforts to communicate what is fair and just through its platform could translate to the swifter disposition of cases related to corruption, the environment, and gender issues.
This conceptualizes IDLO’s lobbying functions from which arises a notion that the Philippine judiciary is penetrable by international organizations’ perceived expertise, moral, and delegated authority. While the IDLO is cautious from exploiting its partnership with Philippine judicial bodies, its involvement opens the pathway for other IOs with veiled intentions to influence legal reforms in the country. More importantly, IDLO’s presence in the country reveals a glaring gap between the judicial resources of the country and the judicial skills that Filipino judges and prosecutors should possess. This critically becomes a point of contention whether the country has the means to train its own judiciary or whether our current finances would prefer aid from international organizations in boosting the country’s judicial capacity.
Molding jurisprudence?
The current dynamic between the IDLO and the Philippine judicial bodies is what permits the judiciary to assert its sovereignty while deviating from being excessively rigid. While the IDLO cannot influence the policy direction of judicial systems, it can influence the actors and their methods within the system.
Operating from the case of the Philippine judiciary and the IDLO, it can be contended that the judicial bodies of states afford IOs certain exceptions to their independence from external influences as long as they prove to be beneficial to the judiciary. Further, this access is hinged on the condition that these legal development IOs strictly coordinate with government authorization. Succinctly, this dynamic explores an area within international studies regarding IOs’ involvement limitations in states’ judicial processes and on what grounds do international actors have the capacity and authority to define justice and judicial procedures for sovereign states.
References
Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Cornell University Press.
Dellmuth, L. M., Scholte, J. A., & Tallberg, J. (2019). Institutional sources of legitimacy for international organisations: Beyond procedure versus performance. Review of International Studies, 45(4), 627–646. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026021051900007X
International Development Law Organization. (n.d.). Our People | IDLO. International Development Law Organization. Retrieved May 17, 2022, from https://www.idlo.int/about-idlo/our-people
International Development Law Organization. (2017a, February 3). Enhancing the capacity of prosecutors in the Philippines | IDLO. International Development Law Organization. Retrieved May 17, 2022, from https://www.idlo.int/what-we-do/initiatives/enhancing-capacity-prosecutors-philippines
International Development Law Organization. (2017c, August 2). Philippines symposium reviews anti-corruption efforts | IDLO. International Development Law Organization. Retrieved May 17, 2022, from https://www.idlo.int/news/highlights/philippines-symposium-reviews-anti-corruption-efforts
International Development Law Organization. (2017b, September 13). Integrity and anti-corruption in the Philippines | IDLO. International Development Law Organization. Retrieved May 17, 2022, from https://www.idlo.int/news/highlights/integrity-anti-corruption-philippines
International Development Law Organization. (2022, March 16). Climate Justice for Women and Girls: A Rule of Law Approach to Feminist Climate Action. International Development Law Organization. https://www.idlo.int/publications/climate-justice-women-and-girls-rule-law-approach-feminist-climate-action?fbclid=IwAR2Kupf-No0JMgJWrZDw4AfNElCZ4OB1TRKkmAz3AMlUfepNdIfnKeL0Y3g
The Philippine Embassy in The Netherlands. (2022, February 14). PH Ambassador Conveys Appreciation to IDLO Hague Officials for Programs in PH. The Philippine Embassy in The Netherlands. Retrieved May 17, 2022, from https://thehaguepe.dfa.gov.ph/press-releases/1610-ph-ambassador-conveys-appreciation-to-idlo-hague-officials-for-programs-in-ph
Sadiku, E. (n.d.). The Sustainable Development Goals — Westernizing ‘developing’ countries. Scalar. Retrieved May 17, 2022, from https://scalar.usc.edu/works/cec-journal-issue-2/the-sustainable-development-goals---westernizing-developing-countries
