Legal pluralism is a lived reality in Mindanao yet there are very few scholarly and practice-oriented works on the subject. The discourse on plural legal orders is a site of contestation among political interests both in Mindanao and within the Philippine state. The interests on 'alternative' modes of justice have been driven by both domestic and international initiatives on legal reform and access to justice. There is a need to deepen studies on legal pluralism in Mindanao, including more empirical studies on the functional administration of justice, the roles, backgrounds and motivations of justice providers and users, and the interaction or interdependency among the various normative orders within the local level and between the local and central state justice systems. The provision of effective justice among the people in Mindanao is a crucial task of post-conflict reconstruction that includes careful balancing and management of these complex plural legal systems.

Legal hybrids have the potential to address justice and development issues in both conflict and post conflict settings. Using the Philippine Shari'ah court system as a case study, this study demonstrates that state hybrids suffer from legitimacy and capacity issues that also constrain their ability to deliver effective justice services and respond to conflict challenges. Forging cooperative networks between secular courts and Shari'ah courts and between local justice personnel and central justice authorities can enhance the effectiveness and legitimacy of a formalized legal hybrid. This can assist in addressing the justice deficit that fuels the cycle of conflict and sustain peacebuilding efforts post conflict.

Courts have become an increasing focus for political contestation in Southeast Asia. Yet little is known about the basis of their political power and legitimacy. Drawing on recent scholarship in the field of judicial politics, and presenting a case study of the Philippine Supreme Court after the transition to democracy in 1986, this article explores the conditions under which the Court has exercised its powers in the context of a democratizing state such as the Philippines. More specifically, it will show how strong public support has enabled the Court to exercise its judicial review powers and its authority over contending political actors. In drawing attention to the understudied link between public support and judicial assertiveness, the paper aims to advance existing scholarship by going beyond existing indicators of judicial independence and to provide new insights into the dynamics of evolving constitutional practice in the region through the interaction of the courts with the public.

Hybridity is often conflated with the fragile state or the 'absence' of the state in a conflict environment.¹ The emergence of hybrid institutions is also explained primarily in terms of the lack of capacity and legitimacy of state organs and its personnel or in the condition of a power vacuum.² A sense of power disequilibrium or societal imbalance and disarray inheres from this presumption. Hybridity, however, serves a function that sustains conflict resilience and at the same time address immediate justice needs. Hybrids arise to provide a state of equilibrium and to provide order in an otherwise messy condition—while also contributing to the messiness. My study of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), Philippines, points to how hybrid justice mechanisms have developed to cope with insecurity arising from actual and perceived injustices in the community.³

Introduction In this study, the central question being asked is: Why would a politicized court actually rule against the policy preferences of the political actors? This may appear to be an oxymoron, especially in the light of some views that constitutional politics may only do well in a democracy where courts are "independent." On the contrary, we make an assumption of a "political court," the Philippine Supreme Court, in view of its historical and institutional embeddedness in wider politics. This may also help us in re-examining our views about an "activist court" and under what conditions it assumes this behavior. But how does a court actually assert itself against the wishes or interests of political actors or render decisions that guard against affronts to constitutional norms and principles? Does the court make strategic calculations of the possible behavior of other political actors, the executive or the legislative, or does it rely on something else, including the wealth of prior jurisprudence? This chapter proposes that the public also poses a significant constraint to court behavior, and which the court also depends on for its legitimacy. Public support and legitimacy – features that have received scant attention in the study of constitutional politics – are posited as key factors in determining the ability of the Court to render decisions contrary to policy preferences. Does the public provide an adequate anchor for the Court to pursue constitutional rulemaking and thus advance the rule of law? Using the Philippine Supreme Court as a case study, this chapter seeks to illuminate these questions and to provide a framework to better understand and capture the multiplicity of drivers involved in constitutional politics and how the Court manages the interplay of various factors affecting constitutional rulemaking in the context of a democratizing state like the Philippines.

The Duterte administration is often considered a rupture in Philippines' politics. Yet, how different is Duterte's programme of change from the past governments, particularly from its predecessor, the Aquino II administration? Is there a shift in regime orientation and policy preferences from Aquino II to Duterte? What will this mean to the future direction of Philippine democracy, its economic development, peace and security, and relations with other countries?

This volume focuses on four critical areas—politics and governance" economic governance" Mindanao peace process" and international relations—to illustrate continuities or discontinuities in policies and governance of institutions to explain the dynamics of change in the Philippines. It pays particular attention to the crucial period between Aquino II and the early years of Duterte. The reason is that Aquino II represents an important period for rebuilding and consolidating institutions of governance and accountability after two previous tumultuous administrations. Yet Aquino II also demonstrates the inherent flaws of Philippine democracy and unravels the contradictory forces vying for state power that sets the scene for Duterte's rise. Reflecting on the crucial transition period between the two presidencies, while also providing a much-needed update on the most noteworthy policy changes since Duterte's inauguration, the book fills an important scholarly gap in understanding Asia's oldest and most puzzling democracy.

An interdisciplinary work that comparatively studies rule of law practices and the relationship between the rule of law and regional integration, a topic largely explored in European integration. By looking at the function of the rule of law in ASEAN rather than what it 'means' measured on normative conception, this book situates the rule of law in broader institutional and political processes in the member states and in regional relations to show the motivations of member states in adopting a peculiar type of regional architecture. It asks whether forging the rule of law in the region can help build it internally for member states. The book revisits discourses on the 'spill-over' of economic integration, the impact of globalization in reshaping the state, and generating new tools of the rule of law. It makes a comprehensive comparison – the European Union, Africa Union and MERCOSUR – showing the uneven pathways to rule of law in various contexts.