Recent events in the Philippines demonstrate how democratic backsliding can be very slow and quiet, but still impactful. In particular, it shows how power and influence in the executive can erode the institutions that make democracy function. 

In May of 2024, the former Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri was forced to step down from his position. This comes as a result of his opposition to amend the Constitution of 1987. One of the main proponents for this amendment was Speaker of the House of Representatives Martin Romualdez, cousin of the current President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.

On the backdrop of this, there have also been Senate hearings linking the sitting President Marcos Jr. to illegal drug use. Zubiri’s allowance for specific evidence in the hearings led to a drop in his allies from Marcos Jr. supporters in the Senate. 

Zubiri, in his closing remarks, said that his dismissal was due to not being able to “follow instructions” from higher powers. Senator JV Ejercito also said that the replacement was the result of “somebody higher than the Senate.”

The two, most certainly, are alluding to President Marcos Jr. as swaying his allies to get rid of Zubiri. 

This event represents a type of democratic backsliding known as constitutional retrogression, developed by Aziz Huq and Tom Ginsburg. 

While we may think of authoritarianism developing through coups and overthrows of the sitting government, it can also come from completely legal acts within the federal power. Huq and Ginsburg find constitutional retrogression particularly dangerous because it is slow and much harder to detect. 

Several of the avenues Huq and Ginsburg mention that leads to constitutional retrogression can be found in just this one event, including formal constitutional amendment, voiding institutional checks, and removal of political competition. 

Starting with amendments, Zubiri’s refusal to approve the amendment proposal resulted in his removal from his position. A position that would be filled by someone more likely to approve it. 

This is amidst a country that has a notorious history for authoritarianism in recent decades and whose public is very wary of the motives behind previous proposals to amend the constitution. 

Constitutional amendment is a dangerous part of constitutional retrogression because it looks democratic. It follows the democratic process and is official legislation for the country. However, being able to easily add amendments is dangerous. Amendments can easily be used to remove term limits, keeping an executive in power indefinitely. It can even be used to try and reorganize the entire government. 

That has been a large fear of people in the Philippines from previous attempts to amend the constitution. Changes to the Constitution in the Philippines have often been met with pushback since its creation in 1986. The Constitution contains specific rights to the people as a result of the previous dictator, Ferdinand Marcos Sr. And yes, that is the father of the Philippines current president. 

Many of the proponents for amendments have been accused of trying to use them to remain in power through removing term limits or reorganization of the institutions. They changed course to try and focus on amendments involving economics, but even those still struggled to gather support. 

So, it is interesting that now, Zubiri is being removed from office because of his opposition to an amendment. And it’s a decision heavily influenced by the executive. 

We can also see a removal of institutional checks within this event. Part of the Senate’s job is to launch investigations on policies in which they can legislate. Yet in the middle of investigation of the sitting president, the head of the Senate is removed.

President Marcos Jr. has many allies in the Senate, who were quick to turn on Zubiri for his decision in the court proceedings. Then his eventual removal was subject to pressure from the President. This is an interference of the Senate proceedings by the executive power to prevent him from being held liable for the possible drug charges. 

Institutional checks are vital to a healthy democracy. If there is no check on the executive from the other branches of government, they are unlimited in the power they have. No one would be able to stop them from doing whatever they please to remain in power. 

It is the entire point of separation of powers for the branches to be able to check each other. And yet here, we see those checks falling away. 

Even worse, a large amount of the Senate is approving of this, which brings us to the final mechanism for constitutional retrogression: removal of political opponents. 

Zubiri was not removed for incompetence or maladministration. He was removed for differences in policy. Removed for blocking an amendment and for not impeding on the court proceedings against the president. 

This removal of competitors is an example of democratic backsliding because they can just be replaced with those that will only approve of the executive. This creates legislators that will agree with what the president does and will never push back on their demands.

This results in what is pretty much an authoritarian with unchecked power who is supported by the institutions that are supposed to hold them back. 

That is what happened in this case. The Senate was supportive of the removal of Zubiri at the request of their president, even if the removal wasn’t warranted. The President makes demands and the Senate jumps to fulfill them. 

The power of President Marcos Jr. in the Philippines is going unchecked and it is resulting in the backsliding of their democracy. It is a country that has a deep history of authoritarianism and, rather than be especially wary, it is creeping right back into it.