Legislative Procedures and Perceptions of Legitimacy

Portland State University

PDXScholar

Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses

6-27-2022
Legislative Procedures and Perceptions of

Legitimacy
Megan Elizabeth Cox
Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds
Part of the Political Science Commons

Let us know how access to this document benefits you.
Recommended Citation
Cox, Megan Elizabeth, "Legislative Procedures and Perceptions of Legitimacy" (2022). Dissertations and
Theses. Paper 6029.
https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.7900
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and
Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more
accessible: [email protected].
Legislative Procedures and Perceptions of Legitimacy
by
Megan Elizabeth Cox
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
in
Political Science
Thesis Committee:
Melody Ellis Valdini, Chair
Bruce Gilley
Kim Williams

2022
© 2022 Megan Elizabeth Cox
Legislative Procedures and Perceptions of Legitimacy i
Abstract
While mechanisms of legitimacy development have been extensively studied in
governments as a cohesive whole, procedural legitimation of the legislative branch has
not been explored. Using a procedural justice framework to identify indicators of
openness in legislative rules, this paper theorizes that the presence or absence of these
indicators will be the key factor in public perceptions of legitimacy of the legislature. This
paper hypothesizes that where more indicators are present, a legislature will be viewed
as more legitimate by its citizens as compared to a legislature with fewer indicators.
Comparing Indonesia and the Philippines, two presidential democracies in
Southeast Asia with very similar economic, political, and historical circumstances, this
paper reviews the procedural rules of both legislatures. It further performs a qualitative
analysis of publicly available media reporting to corroborate whether the public has the
opportunity to form opinions of legislative legitimacy based on the availability of
information on legislative procedure. This paper finds that more openness indicators are
present in the legislature of the Philippines than in the legislature of Indonesia. Because
the Philippines legislature enjoys higher public satisfaction that the legislature of
Indonesia, a positive relationship between indicators of openness and perception of
legitimacy is exposed. In the absence of other persuasive explanations of legislative
legitimacy in these two cases, and with qualitative evidence demonstrating the public has
access to information on legislative procedure when forming their opinions on the
legitimacy of the legislature, the theory of legislative legitimation via procedure is
supported by these cases.

Legislative Procedures and Perceptions of Legitimacy ii
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... i
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... iv
I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
II. Literature Review ........................................................................................................... 5
Global Concepts: Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Democracy ............................................ 5
Determinants of Legitimacy in Institutions ................................................................................ 8
Legislatures, Legitimacy, and Procedural Justice...................................................................... 10
III. Theory .......................................................................................................................... 12
IV. Methods ...................................................................................................................... 20
V. Case Background Indonesia.......................................................................................... 28
VI. Case Background Philippines ....................................................................................... 35
VII. Data ............................................................................................................................ 41
Legislative Approval Data ......................................................................................................... 41
Legislative Rules in Indonesia ................................................................................................... 43
Legislative Rules in the Philippines ........................................................................................... 48
Content Analysis Indonesia ...................................................................................................... 52
Content Analysis the Philippines .............................................................................................. 55
VIII. Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 58
IX. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 61
References ........................................................................................................................ 65
Legislative Procedures and Perceptions of Legitimacy iii
List of Tables
Table 1: Indonesia Indicators……………………………………………………………………………………….48

Table 2: Philippines Indicators………………………………………………………………………………………52
Legislative Procedures and Perceptions of Legitimacy iv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Percentage of respondents reporting “a great deal” or quite a lot” of

confidence in their legislatures………………..…………………………………………………………………40
Figure 2: Relationship Between Legislative Approval and Indicators of Openness………56
Legislative Procedures and Perceptions of Legitimacy 1
I. Introduction
As Legislative Counsel to the Senate of the Republic of Palau, I was the frequent
recipient of criticism of the legislative process. “We don’t know what’s going on.” “This
happened out of nowhere.” “They’ve been stalling on this issue for months, are they going
to do anything?” Citizens who contacted me were concerned, frustrated, and sometimes
angry, about their inability to interact with the legislative process. Their lack of
information was not due to a technical deficit in access. The Senate chambers at the
capitol in Melekeok, a 45-minute journey from the population center in Koror, was a
beautiful facility with ample gallery space for visitors. The legislative sessions were
simultaneously broadcast on national television, then rebroadcast that same evening for
those who cared to watch the proceedings but were otherwise occupied during the day.
Palauans’ lack of information came from legislative procedures obfuscating the creation
of policy.
In Palau, legislative rules were antithetical to both transparency and public
participation in the legislative process. Legislation was rarely available before it was
introduced; I occasionally was asked to draft bills at 9am for introduction at a floor session
beginning at 10. Committees did not hold hearings on legislation; rather, they passed
legislation back and forth between members privately until a majority of the members
were satisfied with the draft. There were no restrictions on amendments; a bill initially
drafted to regulate plastic bags could be amended to change agricultural import rules.
And a bill could become law in two votes, one from each chamber, with only 24 hours
elapsing and no notice required to the public.
I observed that the comments of Palauan citizens, expressing dissatisfaction with
the legislature, appeared to be linked to legislative institutions, in particular legislative
procedures, that limited the participation of the public in the generation of legislation. On
the basis of this observation, I theorized there was a causal link between legislative
procedures and perceptions of legitimacy of legislatures as a whole. The causal link
implicated by my anecdotal observations are supported by procedural justice theory.
Procedural justice theory, utilized more often by scholars of criminal justice or
urban planning, holds that people derive their judgments about the outcomes of a
decision-making process based on whether they perceive the process to have been fair.
Elements of fairness include the opportunity to speak on the issue, the transparency of
the process, and the neutrality of the decision-makers. Openness is one catch-all
descriptor for the procedural justice concepts of voice, neutrality, interpersonal respect
and trustworthiness. Openness can be described as the degree to which people who are
not elected members of the legislature can make their views on specific measures under
consideration known and understand the views of legislators in return. Openness
depends to a large extent on chamber rules, particularly those that make legislative
procedures predictable. It also depends on informal institutional norms of behavior. I
theorize that procedural justice, as evidenced by openness of procedural rules, can
impact public perceptions of legitimacy of legislatures, just as it does in other institutions.

In this thesis, I theorize that legislatures with procedural rules incorporating
procedural justice by creating specific opportunities for transparency and public
participation in the legislative process have higher public approval ratings than
legislatures that have not adopted those practices. While the importance of procedural
justice to legitimation has been analyzed in other contexts, it has not previously been
analyzed in the comparative context for national legislatures. To assess that theory, I
analyze the legislative procedures and institutionalized practices of two presidentialist
democracies: Indonesia, and the Philippines. I further analyze the connections between
those procedures and perceptions of legitimacy in the legislatures using qualitative
analysis of publicly available media reporting on the legislative process, to determine if
the legislative procedures exert a causal effect on perceptions of legislative legitimacy. I
measure perceptions of legitimacy using publicly available survey data from the World
Values Survey, on public satisfaction with the legislature in each country. I hypothesize
that if a legislature demonstrates more identifiable indicators of openness in their
legislative rules and practices, perceptions of legitimacy, as indicated by data on public
satisfaction with the legislature, will be relatively higher when contrasted with
legislatures not presenting indicators of openness.
I find that, when legislative procedures are evaluated to ascertain their procedural
fairness by detecting indicators of openness to public participation, the legislature with
more procedural instances of openness enjoys higher rates of public satisfaction than the
legislature with fewer procedural instances of openness. Furthermore, the existence of
publicly available reporting indicates that the public both has access to information
regarding legislative procedure in both countries, and in the country with lower instances
of openness and satisfaction, public reporting draws the connection between legislative
procedure and dissatisfaction.

II. Literature Review
Global Concepts: Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Democracy
An examination of the impact on procedural justice on legitimacy of national
legislatures writ large has not previously been undertaken; however, existing research
has explored many concepts foundational to this study. Both legitimacy and procedural
justice have been examined as global concepts impacting all aspects of societal relations,
and the framework has thus been established to extend these concepts into more
detailed aspects of governance.
There is no lack of research on the presence or the construction of legitimacy as
system-wide phenomena. This extensive research, however, has not generated
consensus on the origin of legitimacy, beyond finding that the origins of legitimacy are
“multiple, interconnected, and context-specific” (McLaughlin, 2015). Many
categorizations of legitimacy generation methods exist; many include a category of
procedural (von Soest and Grauvogel, 2017) or “through-put” (Scharpf, 1999; Schmidt,
2013; Taylor, 2019) legitimacy. Broadly, this conception of legitimation holds that it is the
consistent observation of rules through which legitimacy is generated. While the
literature finds that not every regime seeks legitimation through procedures, it also finds
that all regime types rely on procedures to some extent. The centrality of procedural
legitimation compared to other identified legitimation methods, however, is not
conclusively known.
Similarly, existing scholarship has not settled on the appropriate evaluative
perspective to employ when analyzing the phenomenon of legitimacy. While some

scholars employ a top-down approach, concerned primarily with identifiable elements of
the system in which legitimacy is to be evaluated (Buchanan, 2002), others center the
experience of the public and whether they believe the use of state authority is justifiable
(Beetham, 1999; Taylor, 2019; Gilley, 2006). The top-down approach permits scholars to
adopt an objective lens through which to evaluate the presence or absence of systemic
characteristics, while the bottom-up framework centering the experiences and
perceptions of citizens as the metric by which legitimacy can be measured.
Not all studies of legitimacy fall on one side or the other of this paradigmatic
divide. Weatherford’s (1992) work represents an attempt at bridging that gap and uniting
the institutional and public opinion paradigms. In his attempt to develop improved survey
methods by which we might evaluate public opinion on legitimacy, he observes that
individuals are capable of making much more targeted assessments of actors and of
distinguishing actors from institutions when forming opinions of their government. This
insight indicates individuals may form nuanced perceptions of the legitimacy of political
institutions within the broader governmental structure. It also augers well for a study such
as this one, asking targeted, focused questions about how particular processes within
institutions may be reflected in survey data on legislative approval.
Previous scholarship has demonstrated that people evaluate governmental
systems based on whether they believe they have been treated fairly (McLoughlin, 2015;
Taylor, 2019; Meares et al. 2015; Bottoms and Tankebe, 2012). This concept, “procedural
justice” theory contends that perceptions of outcomes are shaped by evaluations of the
openness and fairness of the process. The importance of procedural justice has been
confirmed through empirical, experimental evidence testing perceptions of systems on
the basis of the inclusivity and neutrality. This research demonstrates that people broadly
evaluate a system on the basis of how they feel it treats them, that they are more willing
to accept negative outcomes when they feel the system is fair, that they are more inclined
to compromise when the system is fair, and that they evaluate their beliefs about how a
system values the based on the fairness demonstrated by the process. Empirical research
also shows that people are more reliant on evaluations of the fairness of a process when
they receive an unfavorable outcome (Muller and Kals, 2007). The impact of procedural
fairness is not limited to formal institutions; it is a society-wide phenomena that impacts
all interpersonal interactions (Muller and Kals, 2007).
Scholars have identified consistent elements of systems that are perceived as
procedurally just. Again broadly construed, the elements of a procedurally just system are
voice, or the ability of the public to express their views before the authorities make a
decision; neutrality, or the transparency and impartiality of the decision-making process;
interpersonal respect, or respect for the rights and dignity of all people who may be
impacted; and fourth, trustworthy motives, or the belief of the public that the authorities
are attempting to do what is good for the people for whom they are responsible (Bottoms
and Tankebe, 2012). When broadly construed in this manner, the elements of procedural
justice, or their absence, may be identified in any society or component of societal
procedure. By applying this framework, other scholars have evaluated the procedural
justice of institutions; by applying it to legislatures, I am able to extend the concept to
additional institutions not previously considered.

While democracy is yet another heavily debated concept, the most useful
conceptualization is a broad vehicle for translating legitimacy and procedural justice into
a system of government. Scholars debate whether democracy is a purely procedural
matter of elections for control of governmental authority (Schumpeter) or a multi-
pronged test requiring both procedures and values (Beetham 1999). Regardless of the
definition of democracy, however, the need for an application of established procedures,
in some manner, is a constant criterion. Democracy is, across definitions, recognizable as
a vehicle for both the public’s expression of input, or voice, as well as the public’s receipt
of interpersonal respect and demonstrations of trust as elected officials or parties
communicate to them. When present in a conceptualization of democracy, the values
imputed to citizens of a democracy are values that correspond to the elements of
procedural justice. Across definitions, as we identify the unifying procedural justice
characteristics of democracy, we can see attempts to procedurally legitimate a
democracy as the moral holder of authority. This observation lends itself to deeper study;
as a democracy as a whole legitimates itself using its procedures, how may components
of democracies do similarly?
Determinants of Legitimacy in Institutions
Diving deeper, the literature shows us that institutions within a democracy can
develop their own legitimacy, and that some do so by incorporating elements of
procedural justice. Procedural justice has previously been explored and applied to
criminal justice and urban planning settings, as well as the European parliament. This
demonstrates that legitimacy need not be perceived as a government-wide phenomenon;

sub-institutions may develop their own legitimacy, and may do so through procedures.
However, national legislatures have yet to be examined through this lens.
Procedural justice theory flows throughout the public administration literature on
public engagement and legitimacy, sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly. In his
discussion of legitimacy in public planning, Taylor (2019) notes that the search for
legitimacy is of central concern, though it is not often expressed as such. Participation is
assumed to lend legitimacy, though the mechanism leading from participation to that
legitimacy may not be vocalized. Additionally, public administration scholars have been
able to demonstrate the impact of public participation on legitimacy in a controlled
setting. Using a survey experiment, with a hypothetical planning procedure to determine
a finite planning issue, Jacobs and Kaufmann (2021) demonstrate that participants are
more likely to perceive a planning process as “fair” when participation is solicited. Their
research, among other work on the subject, demonstrates that institutions may be
evaluated on the basis of their own procedures, separate and apart from the legitimacy
of the broader government in which the institution is situated.
Furthermore, procedural justice may be used as a supplement for other forms of
democratic legitimacy in institutions. While we know that institutional design involves
trading off values, such as exchanging representation in a legislature for efficiency in a
legislature, we may also conclude that these trade-offs offer alternate paths to legitimacy
for the institution (Clucas and Valdini, 2014). The tradeoff may be between
representation and efficiency, and therefor procedural legitimation and performance
legitimation, but the goal of legitimation at the sub-national level remains. Across the
procedural justice literature, we see the application of procedural legitimation in
bureaucratic settings. The specific application of procedural justice to law enforcement
(Bottoms and Tankebe, 2012) and public planning (Jacobs and Kaufmann, 2021)
demonstrates the utility of the theory when evaluating the legitimacy of institutions that
are not directly elected. Though they may report to elected officials, police officers and
urban planners are not directly elected; the literature reasonably has therefore
reasonably focused on the manner in which these unelected institutions may establish
their legitimacy. It has not been extended to the legislature, comprised of officials who
are directly elected and may have been supposed to have generated its legitimacy by
other means. This absence represents a gap in the literature.
Legislatures, Legitimacy, and Procedural Justice
Finally, while literature exists comparing legislatures, and demonstrates that
those comparisons are valid even across political culture (Lijphart, 2012; Clucas and
Valdini ,2014), legislatures have not previously been compared on the basis of their
incorporation of procedural justice elements in their legislative procedure and the impact
of these elements on legitimacy of the legislature itself.
The literature establishes the comparability of legislative institutions across
countries. (Shepsle and Weingast, 1994; Laver, 2008). The literature also establishes the
necessity of institutions within legislatures to manage the flow of business, and indicates
the value of studying those institutions (Cox, 2008); however, the details and comparative
case evaluations are limited. Some study of state legislatures has demonstrated that
public approval of a state legislative body is more likely to hinge on the match between
the partisan control of the legislature and the individual assessing it, and the policy
outputs made by that legislature, rather than the professionalization of that legislature
(Richardson et al, 2012; Langehennig et al., 2019). However, professionalization is not
necessarily a function of incorporation of procedural justice indicators in procedure. The
availability of competent legislative staff, for example, may facilitate the ability of citizens
to effectively communicate with their legislators, but it does not necessarily do so.
The gap in the literature, therefore, comes when considering the impact of
procedural justice on the legitimacy of the legislature. Despite the study of procedural
justice in bureaucratic settings, as discussed above, procedural justice has not been
examined as a driver of legitimacy of a legislature independent of the government in
which it sits. In addition to the extant literature examining procedural fairness and
resulting legitimacy in other governmental institutions, the literature also tells us that
procedural justice impacts all interpersonal interactions in a society (Muller and Kals,
2007). It is therefore reasonable to extend the concept to questions of legislative
legitimacy.
III. Theory
I theorize that the legitimacy of a legislature is determined by its procedure, and
that the causal relationship between legislative procedures and legitimacy exists
independently of other legitimation by the rest of the governments in which the
legislature sits. This basis for theory is not a novel one: many scholars have ascertained
the relevance of adherence to ostensibly fair procedures when cultivating regime-wide
legitimacy or legitimacy in bureaucratic subdivisions of government. The novelty lies in
decoupling the procedure and the legitimacy of the legislature from the procedures and
legitimacy of the whole of the government; procedural legitimation is not a framework
that has previously been applied to legislatures independent of the governments in which
they function. Because people use procedural justice information to evaluate a specific
institution and their relationship to it, and because empirical evidence has demonstrated
the relevance of procedural justice in citizen evaluation of the legitimacy of other
institutions within government, I propose that the justice and fairness of legislative
procedure is the causal mechanism generating citizen perception of legitimacy of the
legislature.
The theoretical basis for this research is an institutionalist one: the institutional
rules of the legislature drive public opinion of the legislature as an actor, independent
from public opinion of any legislator. This paper relies on the idea that legislative
institutions, and more precisely the institutional structures operating within legislatures,
dictate the ability of actors to set agendas and dictate the political behavior of individuals.
The institution and its rules are the independent variable and the unit of study. By
studying those institutions, and assessing their impact on political behavior, we can learn
which institutions need modification if changes in public behavior are desired.
I assume that procedural legitimacy of the legislature, independent of legitimacy
of the government, flows from a reiterative process of proposed legislation and public
reaction to it. This approach builds from Beetham’s (1999) conceptualization of
democracy as a system of government which has both popular control and political
equality as its two foundational principles. These principles are not merely components
of a system, they are values held and agreed to by a critical mass of both citizens and
elites. This approach then examines more closely how political control is perceived to be
effectuated as a value by citizens. Because legislators must make decisions across many
policy areas, it is difficult to control ex ante the beliefs of a representative on every policy
area. While some theorists have responded that the public therefore conceptualizes their
“control” as choosing competent individuals with good character to carry out public
business, my theory presupposes that the public instead views subjects of legislation as
opportunities to make their views heard. While not all members of the public care about
all subjects, equally or at all, at the aggregate level the public is invested in individual
decisions about matters before the legislature. When they are able to anticipate when
those issues will be taken up by the legislature and participate in the process by way of
physical presence or testimony, they believe they have the ability to exert some level of
influence on the decisions made by their representatives. That perception of influence
reinforces the belief that they have the opportunity to control the process, enhancing
their perception of legitimacy.

Prior research has shown that regimes engage in deliberate self-legitimation, and
many regimes leverage procedures to do so. While not all regimes deliberately legitimate
themselves in the same way, even authoritarian regimes rely in some ways on procedure
to legitimize themselves. Liberal or electoral democracies are understandably more
reliant on their procedures to generate their legitimacy (von Soest and Grauvogel, 2017).
It is reasonable to extrapolate that the institutions within a democracy will be as reliant
on their own procedures to produce the institution’s legitimacy as the democratic
government as a whole. It is further reasonable to extrapolate from the work of Tyler that
procedural justice is a key legitimator of governance structures beyond simply the
criminal justice system.
Previous scholarship has observed that perceptions of justice and perceptions of
legitimacy are logically linked in other governmental contexts. Legitimacy is, when viewed
through a subjective, bottom-up lens, the belief that authority is being used justly, even
when one disagrees with decisions being made using that authority. I propose that, just
as procedural justice theory finds when applied to criminal justice or planning, one may
be satisfied with the legislature when it does not produce the outcomes one would prefer,
if one believes they have a chance to present a case and receive a fair hearing. Because
survey data isolates satisfaction with a branch, rather than a government, the potential
to decouple perceptions of the institution from the occupants is enhanced. While the
potential for influence of policy outcomes on these perceptions is not dismissed by this
theory, it proposes that institutions weigh more heavily on perceptions than partisanship.
I theorize that the procedural justice of legislative institutions is not only a
determinant, but in fact the key determinant of public perceptions of legitimacy of the
legislative branch. In democracies where the public satisfaction with the legislature is
high, it is because legislative institutions facilitate public participation and take that
participation seriously. In democracies where public satisfaction with the legislature is
low, it is because legislative institutions are closed off from the public and the public feels
it does not have the opportunity to participate, or even be aware of, the process. This
approval or disapproval stems both from a sense of awareness of the progress of
legislation and the ability to provide input on individual components of legislation, rather
than merely selecting an individual and approving or disapproving of their performance
across all policy issues when that individual seeks re-election.
In order to form these perceptions of legitimacy, I contend that individuals form
impressions about the procedural fairness of their legislature by evaluating components
of the legislative process. The procedures are made publicly available via the legislature
in its own communication to citizens; they are also publicized by reports on legislative
procedures through media, either in the form of general reporting on the institution or
stories about specific legislation. Additionally, interest groups or other entrepreneurs may
elect to make the public aware of the potential for contribution to legislative discourse
through public outreach. Assuming the public is aware of these procedures, I contend that
these evaluations track roughly with the components of procedural justice identified by
Meares et al. (2015): individuals evaluate whether legislative procedure provides them
the opportunity to have a voice, is neutral and transparent, demonstrates respect for the
public, and evidences the trustworthy motives of the legislators.
Citizens evaluate whether they have “voice” in the legislative branch based not
only the ability to elect minimally responsive legislators. Voice also requires the ability to
make legislators aware of one’s preferences on individual policy decisions being
contemplated by the legislature. That voice can come in the form of the ability to speak
directly to an individual legislator via in-person or written communication, or to have
one’s comments considered as part of the record in a legislative hearing.
Individuals additionally evaluate the neutrality of legislative procedures.
Neutrality can be seen in the non-arbitrary application of legislative rules over time and
across party. Neutrality can also be observed in the form of transparency. Transparency
can be seen when the public can identify what the legislature is considering. Transparency
also requires the ability of citizens to determine the position their legislator took on a
piece of legislation. Additionally, neutrality may be evaluated by citizens who consider
whether public testimony is permitted, or if only invited testimony, from government
agencies, organized groups, or industry representatives, is permitted.
Furthermore, citizens evaluate how legislative procedures recognize the dignity of
members of the public, which Tyler and Meares term “interpersonal respect.”
Interpersonal respect in legislative procedures can be manifested in a number of ways,
not limited to conventional displays of courtesy. Interpersonal respect also can be
demonstrated through procedures or practices that invest weight in public participation.
This can be manifested through attendance at committee hearings where public

testimony is taken, by follow-up questions to public comments, or by statements made
by legislators demonstrating that a member of the public has influenced their thoughts
on a matter. By contrast, procedures designed to negate or override public participation
in the legislative process may be interpreted by the public as demonstrating a lack of
respect for the public. Procedures demonstrating a lack of respect for public participation
in the process include, in addition to the inverse of those listed immediately above,
deliberate circumvention of public hearing procedures through late amendments or
dramatic alterations to bills after they have passed the procedural point at which public
hearings would be held.
Demonstration of trustworthy motives in legislative procedures, meanwhile, may
be as simple as the creation of clear, regimented schedules and rules holding legislators
accountable and preventing legislation by surprise. The absence of indicators that
legislators are attempting to circumvent neutrality and transparency mechanisms also
demonstrate trustworthy motives. When individuals can observe that legislators are
voluntarily submitting themselves to procedures designed to enhance the openness of
the legislative branch, they are able to infer that the legislators do not have ulterior
motives and are worthy of trust.
By connecting these procedural justice components to the legislative rules that
effectuate or inhibit them, and through observations of legislative norms and practices, I
theorize a positive relationship will emerge between indicators of openness and
legitimacy as measured through public satisfaction with the legislature.

Alternate explanations of legitimation of the legislature abound. First, procedural
justice has been applied to whole governments to explain their legitimation, with the
implicit assumption that the legitimation of one branch or entity carries through to all
other entities connected with the government. This theory does not account for the
ability of citizens to distinguish one branch from another when evaluating job
performance of the incumbents in that branch. Satisfaction with individual branches or
entities within government is not necessarily the same; therefore, cohesive enterprise-
wide legitimation is not a satisfactory explanation.
Next, one might argue that legitimation is dependent upon outcomes or
performance of the legislative branch. However, this runs contrary to the concept of
legitimacy itself. If legitimacy is understood as an acceptance of a state’s authority even
when it engages in actions contrary to one’s interests, then perception of legitimacy
depend on disagreement with legislative outcomes. While it is not always the case that a
citizen may have the opportunity to disagree with a legislature, it is far more likely that a
legislature will produce some piece of legislation with which a citizen disagrees, and it is
the citizen’s perception of the legislature despite that decision, rather than because of it,
that dictates legitimacy. Finally, legitimacy is more properly considered a precondition for
satisfaction than satisfaction a driver of legitimacy. One may perceive a legislature
legitimate, but not consider it satisfactory on the basis of performance, but it is less likely
that a legislature will be satisfying if it is not first legitimate.
One might further argue that this theory fails due to a lack of public knowledge on
legislative procedures. While it may be argued that citizens do not understand legislative
procedure well enough to form an opinion about the procedure’s fairness (Prior 2021), I
do not believe this is the case. Testing a voter’s knowledge of legislative procedures is a
different matter from asking whether the legislative procedure is fair, just as testing a
motorist’s specific knowledge of criminal procedure is different from asking if they believe
the officer treated them fairly. The literature on procedural justice from a psychological
standpoint finds that people are able to perceive the fairness of their treatment and use
that information to form detailed inferences about their position vis-à-vis the group; it
stands to reason that they will be capable of doing the same regarding the legislature with
limited information. Part of this paper will specifically test the availability of information
on legislative procedure in print media, to demonstrate that a minimal amount of
information is publicly available. If information is not sequestered, I theorize, on the basis
of existing research that the public is sufficiently aware to draw conclusions as to the
justice of a procedure and the resulting legitimacy of an entity.

IV. Methods
To test the effects of legislative procedures on perceptions of legitimacy, I use a
most similar systems analysis to compare two cases, Indonesia and the Philippines, which
are broadly similar across many variables. By comparing their legislative procedures, and
supplementing that analysis with qualitative data on public perceptions of the legislative
process, I evaluate the connections between the independent variable of openness in
legislative procedures with the dependent variable of public satisfaction with the
legislature, to identify if causality exists between the two variables.
A most similar systems method is the appropriate form of analysis for this
research question under these circumstances. Analyses using a most similar systems
method enable the political scientist to extrapolate a cause of a phenomenon by
comparing two cases that align in each variable except the variable the researcher has
identified. Because pure experiments, with every variable matching, can be difficult to
come by, this form of analysis aims to find cases as close as possible on the variables that
matter. As I delineate in greater detail in the Case Background sections to follow,
Indonesia and the Philippines have substantially similar profiles. Both are large, multi-
ethnic Southeast Asian democracies. Both are third-wave democracies, with extensive
histories of colonization and subsequent control by authoritarian regimes. Though both
democratized at a similar, although not concurrent, time, the democratization processes
in the two countries diverged significantly. These divergent experiences are arguably
represented in their legislative institutions, folding the most significant difference
between the two, other than the independent variable, into the independent variable.
Literature comparing these two cases exists, as well. Buehler and Nataatmadja
(2021) compared the success of former members of the authoritarian elite in seeking
election to the legislature, finding that the state of the authoritarian party and the
structure of the authoritarian state influenced whether elites were able to survive; they
also found that authoritarian elites in the Philippines were more likely to find electoral
success than those in Indonesia. In addition to demonstrating the comparability of the
two cases, this study provides unique insight into the democratization processes in both,
and will prove useful as I trace the influence democratization had on the development of
the legislative structure and the development of perceptions of legitimacy.
Because I hypothesize that if the institutional rules and norms of the legislature
create opportunities for the public to be aware of and participate in the legislative
process, the public will demonstrate a higher rate of approval of the legislature, I will
therefore evaluate this hypothesis by examining legislative rules of Indonesia and the
Philippines, as well as secondary sources, to identify the presence or absence of indicators
of legislative procedures open to public intervention and facilitating transparency. The
indicators to be identified or noted as absent are whether the legislature holds public
hearings, whether the legislature takes public testimony on legislation, whether
amendments may be considered during plenary session or are restricted to committees,
whether the legislature legislates on only one subject in a piece of legislation, as opposed
to omnibus legislation, and whether the legislature posts agendas for their hearings and
votes so the public may be aware of what legislation is presently under consideration. I
hypothesize that the more of these indicators are present, the higher the level of public
satisfaction, and thus perceived legitimacy, will be.
First, the existence of public committee hearings on legislation under
consideration allows for both transparency and the transmission of public sentiment from
members of the public to legislators. When legislators obtain information in public,
members of the public can be aware of the information they are receiving and counter or
reinforce it as appropriate to their legislative goals. They may also demonstrate their
position on legislation independent of providing testimony, through their presence or
some other type of public demonstration. While it may be the case in any legislature that
positions on bills are negotiated away from the public eye, the existence of public
discussion and recorded public votes on legislation will be interpreted as the existence of
public hearings on legislation. The presence of this rule permits the opportunity to
present information to legislators, publicly or privately, regarding legislation under
consideration, giving members of the public a voice in the legislative proceedings. It also
enhances the transparency aspect of neutrality by facilitating public visibility of the
legislative process.
Second, public hearings in which testimony may be given on legislation under
consideration, give the public the opportunity to directly contribute to the legislative
process on the record. In addition to the receipt of testimony, the hearings give the public
the opportunity to hear the views of other individuals or groups, and to evaluate the
legislators’ positions on the legislation based on the legislators’ comments or questions.
Members of the public can also evaluate the legislation’s chances of success or failure,
based on the consideration given to the legislation at a hearing, given that not every bill
introduced even succeeds in being given initial consideration by a committee. If a
legislature has this requirement, it should be documented in a straightforward manner in
the legislative rules. This rule will be considered to be present if public hearings are
required for most or all bills, with exceptions permitted if the exceptions are limited in
nature to a small minority of bills. This rule is a crucial component of the “voice” element
of procedural justice.
Third, a requirement that committees consider amendments to legislation, or,
stated differently, a prohibition on amendments being made to legislation while it is being
considered by the whole chamber, limits the opportunities for lobbying legislators, but
also limits the opportunities for surprises. When committees must consider any
amendment added to the bill, the amendments are subjected to the same hearing
process as a piece of legislation introduced independently. When amendments may be
added on the floor, the public may be surprised by the contents of new amendments.
Legislation may be “gut and stuffed,” meaning that at a late stage in the process, the
entire contents of a bill may be removed and replaced with new proposed statutory
language. With a floor amendment, either small or large, the public has less of a chance
to influence the votes of members of the legislature, diminishing the interpersonal
respect facilitated by the legislative rules.
Fourth, a single-subject rule, sometimes described as a requirement that an
amendment be “germane,” imposes limitations on what a piece of legislation can address.
In legislatures with such a rule, the scope of legislation is defined in advance. This allows
interest groups or members of the public to strategically plan which legislation they must
monitor. It also enables them to allocate time or other scarce resources toward lobbying
on legislation containing concepts they support or oppose. While parliamentarians may
interpret an existing germaneness requirement with varying degrees of precision, a
legislature will be determined to have a germaneness requirement or single subject rule
if one is referenced in the standing rules, regardless of the implementation of that
requirement. Single-subject rules impact each element of procedural justice: if laws may
be significantly changed without the notice of an introduced version of a bill cuing the
public that their policy concerns may be under consideration, that diminishes not only the
voice and transparency elements, but also the trustworthiness and interpersonal respect
inherent in the legislative rules.
Finally, “agenda posting” requirements are requirements that a committee notify
the public in advance, by some predetermined measure of time, what will be considered
in a given committee hearing. These requirements give the public or interest groups the
opportunity to read and analyze legislation, prepare testimony, be physically present at a
legislative hearing, and present their testimony to the legislature. Agenda posting goes
hand-in-hand with a public testimony rule to facilitate public participation: a legislature
that accepts public testimony is not truly open if people do not know when they need to
present that testimony. Because the existence or absence of this rule can be a matter of
degrees, this rule will be considered present if it requires at least 24-hours public notice
before the consideration of a bill by a committee, and will be considered present if it is
generally in operation during the legislative session, with exceptions made as

adjournment draws near. Similarly to the single-subject element, agenda posting
requirements not only touch on transparency, but also impact the opportunity to voice
one’s opinion and indicate the respect that legislators have for that opinion. Finally,
passing legislation with no notice, even if that legislation is for the benefit of the public
writ large, does not signal that the legislature is to be trusted; the existence of an agenda
posting requirement will have a significant impact on the perceived trustworthiness of
the legislature.
The primary source for these rules and norms is the published legislative rules of
the legislatures in question (Regulation about Code of Conduct, n.d.; Rules of the Senate,
2016; Rules of the House of Representatives, 2016). To account for the possibility that
norms and rules might lead to different functional results, I consult secondary sources,
including media reporting and observations of other researchers, to identify the presence
or absence of these norms. I will be using the rules from both the Senate and the House
of Representatives in the Philippines, and the rules from the People’s Representative
Council, one chamber of Indonesia’s Congress, in Indonesia. I draw this distinction
because the Regional Representative Council, the other chamber in Indonesia’s bicameral
legislature, has limited legislative authority. The Regional Representative Council may
propose legislation to the People’s Representative Council, and it may provide input on
legislation considering regional and local authority or distribution of resources across the
country, but it does not hold the authority to create legislation in the way the People’s
Representative Council does. Because it is not comparable to the Senate or House in the
Philippines, but the People’s Representative Council is, I analyze only the rules of the
People’s Representative Council in this study.
To further develop the connections between these legislative procedures and
perceptions of satisfaction and legitimacy, I explore multiple sources of qualitative data.
I review publicly available media sources to identify instances of public expression of
approval on the basis of participation in the legislative process, as well as public
expressions of disapproval on the basis of a lack of opportunities to participate in the
legislative process. I review English-language media reporting to detect whether the same
sentiments expressed by Palauan citizens about their legislative procedures are harbored
by Indonesians or Filipinos. Specifically, I will be reviewing reporting to determine, first, if
legislative procedures are reported on, either in the abstract or as applied to the
consideration of certain pieces of legislation, and second, if expressions of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction with the process are noted either among experts, activists, and the public
at large. The existence or absence of this evidence corroborates or refutes the assertion
that both the public can be aware of legislative procedures and that the public is
registering its opinions on legislative procedures.
After evaluating for the presence or absence of these legislative procedures, as
well as indicators of satisfaction or a lack thereof in media, I identify public opinion data
on satisfaction with the legislatures, and compare satisfaction with the indicators of
openness. When identifying perceptions of legitimacy, satisfaction is the best proxy; one
cannot be satisfied with a branch or institution one perceives to be illegitimate, so

satisfaction must flow from a perception both of legitimacy and other positive
associations with the institution.
I use the World Values Survey to generate this dependent variable (Haerpfer et
al., 2022). The World Values Survey has surveyed Indonesians and Filipinos three times
each since Indonesia’s democratization. The World Values Survey uses the same question
to test satisfaction with the legislative branch in both countries and over each survey,
providing excellent comparability across cases. It is also a widely used and respected
source of survey data, enhancing both future replicability and potential expansion and
comparability to other similarly situated democracies in the future.
I hypothesize that, as the number of observed procedural justice indicators in
legislative rule and practice increases, the public perception of legitimacy, as
demonstrated by the approval data collected by the World Values Survey, will increase. I
hypothesize that, as the number of observed procedural justice indicators in legislative
rule and practice decreases, the public perception of legitimacy will decrease accordingly.
If this positive relationship between procedural justice indicators and perception of
legitimacy of the legislature is established, this will provide significant evidence in support
of my theory that procedural justice is the key factor in the legitimacy of legislatures. If,
however, there is no observable relationship between indicators of procedural justice and
the perceived legitimacy of the legislature, or if the relationship is negative, my theory is
not correct.
V. Case Background Indonesia
Indonesia is a Southeast Asian nation of approximately 273 million people
(Population, Total – Indonesia 2021). It is identified as “partly free” by Freedom House
(Freedom in the World 2021 – Indonesia 2021), which notes that it has made “impressive
democratic gains” since its transition to democracy in 1998. Freedom House’s primary
critique of the Indonesian government is its corruption. It also scores very poorly on rule
of law matters. Additionally, Freedom House notes that the region of Yogyakarta has a
hereditary sultan as its unelected governor; the military remains influential; and women,
certain ethnicities, religious minorities, and LGBTQ citizens are underrepresented in
politics. Most importantly for my analysis, Freedom House notes the Indonesian
government’s lack of transparency. Among the questions asked by Freedom House when
evaluating a government’s transparency, or lack thereof, are whether citizens can obtain
information about state operations, whether governments publish information online,
whether civil society, interest groups, journalists and citizens may comment on and
meaningfully influence pending legislation, and whether elected representatives are
accessible to their constituents (Freedom in the World 2021 Methodology, 2021).
Indonesia receives two points out of an available four for transparency, according to
Freedom House.
Indonesia’s transition to democracy began quickly, if late in the third wave of
democratization. As late as 1997, political scientists opined that “‘the third wave has
obviously failed to have any profound impact on Indonesia’s democratic development’”
(Bunte and Ufen, 2009, p. 3). Almost immediately thereafter, under pressure from the
1997 Asian economic crisis, Suharto’s autocratic regime began its transition to democracy
(Bunte and Ufen, 2009). Suharto’s successor pledged to hold free elections in 1999, as
well as decentralizing political power, permitting political parties to operate freely, and
reforming press laws. A new president and parliament were elected as promised in 1999.
However, while Indonesia technically was an electoral democracy at this point, some
contend that Indonesian democratization has been far more complex than the mere
occurrence of free elections (Bunte and Ufen, 2009).
Indonesia is typical of Asian democracies in that it prioritizes majoritarian
outcomes in its institutional design (Gilley, 2014). For example, its electoral rules require
parties competing in national elections to maintain party offices in each district, and
requires that any party must win 3.5% of the national vote to take a legislative seat; both
rules effectively limit the potential of regional or sectarian parties to develop and
empower large-tent legislative majorities (Gilley, 2014, p. 123).
The modern Indonesian government is presidentialist, with executive and
legislative branches drawing authority from separate elections and each, at least
nominally, checking the power of the other. The legislative branch, or People’s
Consultative Assembly, is comprised of a bicameral parliament elected in general
elections every five years. The Regional Representative Council (in Indonesian, Dewan
Perwakilan Daerah, abbreviated as DPD), is a chamber of limited authority: per the
Indonesian Constitution, it may propose bills relating to regional autonomy, relationships
between the central and regional governments, configuration of regions, and financial
arrangements between the center and the regions, and provides consultation to the
lower house on matters of taxation, religion, education, and the national budget
(Constitution of the State of the Republic of Indonesia 1945, 2015, Art 22D). The People’s
Representative Council (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, abbreviated as DPR), is granted
general legislative functions, as well as the responsibilities of budgeting and oversight
(Constitution of the State of the Republic of Indonesia 1945, 2015, Art 21A). The
legislature as a whole retains the right to question the government, generating horizontal
accountability between itself and the executive branch. The legislature may carry out
investigations, and may also direct questions to government ministers.
The principles of deliberation and consensus exert strong influence on Indonesian
legislative procedure. “The decision-making rule of unanimous consent through
deliberation is still used, even after democratization, in the legislative process in the
national parliament (Kawamura, 2011, p. 6). Generally speaking, prior negotiation of
legislation is key. The rules of the legislature direct factions to deliberate to reach
consensus, and say a majority vote should not be used unless attempts to generate
consensus have failed. Therefore, “Both in committee and on the floor of the legislature,
formal votes are rarely taken and decisions are almost always unanimous” (Schneier,
2008, p. 202). Kawamura (2011) also notes that even if legislation is determined by a
majority vote on the floor, such majority votes “hardly ever” occur at the committee stage
(p. 7). Generally, plenary sessions do not overrule decisions made by committees; the
committee stage is where disputes are negotiated to resolution (Schneier 2008).
Committee structure is fairly stable, covering set subjects that roughly track with
executive departments with between 35 and 55 representatives assigned to each

committee (Schneier 2008). However, the committee sessions are generally poorly
attended, with less than a dozen members present at each meeting. Committees do hold
hearings, well covered by the media, where government ministers are questioned by
legislators; however, those testifying are almost always representatives of the
government, and lobbyists and interest groups are virtually unrepresented.
Many of the scholars writing on Indonesia’s legislature note the impact of the
Indonesian tradition of musyawarah dan mufakat, or deliberation and consensus, on the
legislative procedures of Indonesia. Schneier (2008) notes that traditional deliberation
and consensus “makes it extraordinarily hard to trace the locus of decision-making (p.
202). He also describes the challenges for researchers in studying the Indonesian
legislature, noting “Students of the legislative process depend on interviews, hearsay, and
echoes from the back rooms rather than written records, and even these can be difficult
to come by” (Schneier 2008 p. 202). Lobbying groups do not participate in these
negotiations, and the lack of interest group development may be in some ways a result
of a lack of formalized opportunity to participate in the legislative process. Horowitz
(2013) also describes Indonesian democracy as lacking transparency, noting “restricted
access of citizens to the political process […] and generally ‘weak popular participation’”
(p. 208) among other ills. Ziegenhain (2009) goes further, describing the principles of
deliberation and consensus as “contrary to democratic accountability” because they
render it nearly impossible for the public to attribute particular views to a legislator or
faction (p. 46).

Not all scholars agree that deliberation and consensus is harmful to Indonesian
democracy. In a discussion paper for Japan’s Institute of Developing Economies,
Kawamura (2011) reviews the impact of political culture, specifically deliberation and
consensus, on the modern Indonesian government. Kawamura (2011) describes
deliberation and consensus as “an indigenous decision-making rule,” as opposed to
majority voting practices, and notes that the tradition grows out of village-level decision
making that ensures the minority will never have a decision imposed upon it with which
it wholly disagrees. Kawamura (2011) cites Koentjaraningrat, who observes that while it
appears the village head may be making all decisions unilaterally, there is in fact intense
behind-the-scenes lobbying to develop consensus. Kawamura also posits that the
lobbying occurs behind the scenes due to a Javanese social norm to avoid controversy in
public. Kawamura (2011) describes the incorporation of deliberation in legislative
procedure by Soehkarno and Soeharto, and adds that the deliberation and consensus is
still used as the decision-making rule of the national legislature. Kawamura (2011)
describes the confluence of Indonesian political culture and its legislative procedure to
advance an argument that deliberation and consensus have made Indonesian democracy
more stable, contradicting others who describe the lack of transparency in its legislative
procedure as a failing. Deliberation and consensus add veto points in the national
legislature as they do in the villages, ensuring that no minority is fully subjugated to the
majority will; while this generates a trade off in the form of decreased legislative
efficiency, Kawamura (2011) argues that the trade-off disincentivizes minorities from
pursuing extra-democratic means to ensure their rights are recognized and thus enhances
the stability of Indonesian democracy.
Kawamura is not alone in arguing the benefits of deliberation and consensus;
Megawati and Absori (2019) write with the goal of demonstrating that Indonesian
procedures are in fact democratic. They write from a normative and descriptive
perspective on Indonesian democracy. Similar to Kawamura, they trace the deliberation
and consensus model to its roots in Indonesian community life. They propose that
Indonesian procedures are merely another way to institutionalize popular sovereignty
when plebiscites are impractical, no less so than majoritarian voting traditions.
Research on Indonesian legislative procedure has teased out facts relevant to the
impact of procedure on legitimacy, but without connecting those two components. For
example, in Sherlock’s 2012 article on the legislature’s parties and committee structure,
he identifies that policy decisions are made in committee, with very little influence from
legislators who do not serve on that particular committee, but does not relate that to
public ability to influence committees. As Sherlock describes it, the negotiation over
policy positions is primarily left to party leaders, who may commit members of their party
to support legislation they negotiate. Sherlock (2010) specifies that the consensus
development process continues until all parties cease expressing dissent with the
consensus solution, and that because dissent, or lack thereof, is communicated by party
leaders, it is nearly impossible for any one legislator to either express dissent or for the
public to identify which members did or did not express dissent. Sherlock (2010) also
notes that on the rare occasion a plenary session will engage in substantive debate, that
debate is almost never on the merits of a particular piece of legislation. Functionally,
therefore, Sherlock describes a legislative system impervious to public scrutiny. Despite a
focus on the impact of these legislative practices on parties in the legislature, and the
impact of the parties on legislative practices, Sherlock does identify legislative practices
that may be extended into a study of their correlation with public satisfaction.
Research also describes the Indonesian legislature as un- or under-
professionalized. Mietzner and Aspinall (2010) note that poor quality of legislative output
draws media, and subsequently popular, criticism. Ziegenhain (2009) describes an
occasion on which a plenary session descended into fisticuffs, and draws a connection
between that display and its impact on public confidence in the legislature. Ziegenhain
(2009) also notes that the facilities and resources available to the legislature are relatively
sparse and are not necessarily put to good use when available. While the legislators have
each had appropriated to them funds to hire one personal staff member, many have hired
on the basis of nepotism rather than qualifications. He notes that legislative performance
is dependent on technical skills of legislative drafting and legal research, which require
professional staff to accomplish. While it is not the main thrust of his work, Schneier
(2008) also notes that the legislature appears to lack professionalism. This indicates two
potential counter-explanation for relative dissatisfaction with the legislature: either the
demonstrated lack of professionalism, or relatively poor legislative outputs, could
generate a lack of satisfaction with the Indonesian legislature among the public.
VI. Case Background Philippines
The Philippines is a Southeast Asian nation of 109 million people (Population, Total
– Philippines, 2021). Freedom House also scores the Philippines as “partly free” (Freedom
in the World 2021 – Philippines, 2021). Freedom House’s primary critiques of the
Philippines stem from President Duterte’s conduct across a wide range of issues,
particularly his war on drugs (Freedom in the World 2021 – Philippines, 2021).
Additionally, Freedom House identified that the government of the Philippines lacks
effective safeguards against corruption and is insufficiently transparent. As noted above,
when Freedom House evaluates a government’s transparency, or lack thereof, it inquires
whether citizens can obtain information about state operations, whether governments
publish information online, whether civil society, interest groups, journalists and citizens
may comment on and meaningfully influence pending legislation, and whether elected
representatives are accessible to their constituents (Freedom in the World Methodology,
2021). While the Philippines has developed new laws around information freedom, its
government has simultaneously begun withholding asset disclosures for elected officials,
claiming they have been “weaponized.” Furthermore, the United Nations Office for the
High Commissioner for Human Rights has noted that information on the security services’
prosecution of the drug war has not been forthcoming (Freedom in the World 2021 –
Philippines, 2021).
The democratization of the Philippines has been characterized as “People
Powered” both by Filipinos and by non-Filipino scholars (Rood, 2019). Unlike his
contemporary authoritarian rulers, dictator Ferdinand Marcos did not initiate an elite-led
“regime extraction,” but rather refused to engage in a negotiated settlement with his
opposition (Thompson, 1996). As described by Thompson, Marcos’ continued hold on
power was somewhat fueled by the personalized nature of his regime, and the lack of
institutions any insider could seek to preserve outside of his personal rule. When Marcos
did step down, the transition was a revolt, leaving little of the old regime in place, though
with some characters still in play.
The present government of the Philippines is also a presidentialist one, with strict
separation of powers between the executive and the legislature (Thompson, 2018). Like
Indonesia, the legislature of the Philippines is also bicameral (Croissant 2003), with an
upper Senate, having six-year terms concurrent with presidential election, and a lower
House of Representatives elected every two years. Each chamber retains general
legislative authority and must approve of legislation before it is referred to the President.
The President may approve or veto that legislation.
Presidential powers are strong in the Philippines and are accompanied by norms
reinforcing the President’s authority. The President has “package” veto authority, and
partial veto authority for appropriations. While the President may draft notes on bills to
congress, and has exclusive power to submit the national budget, the president otherwise
requires cooperation from legislators to achieve her agenda (Croissant 2003). As noted
by the by researchers, the presidential authority over finance has a significant impact on
legislative behavior, particularly in the absence of party cohesion. Furthermore, the
political norm is that it is the responsibility of the legislature to help the president to enact
her agenda.
Political parties are very weak in the Philippines (Thompson 2018). There are few
negative consequences for party switching, and parties tend to have few non-negotiable
policy prescriptions. Representatives and Senators alike build their power from personal
bases of support; Senators, who are elected nationally, generate their support from
national notoriety (see, e.g. professional boxer Manny Pacquaio), while Representatives,
who are elected in single-member districts, are prominent local figures. There is no
straight ticket voting between positions on the same ballot (Cruz et al. 2017). Parties have
limited power within the legislature.
The Philippines legislature has several institutional mechanisms to facilitate
transparency and public participation in the legislative process. Members of the public
have the right to present written comments to the legislature for its consideration.
Additionally, committee hearings are broadcast on television (Roxas et al., 2011). The
Senate’s Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations sponsored the
test of several applications to determine how the legislature could better use technology
to facilitate transparency and participation (Roxas et al. 2011). The legislative process in
the Philippines is described as “unpredictable” (Rood 2019 p. 175); however, the activities
of the legislature are widely reported on in popular media.
When analyzing the political culture of the Philippines, some scholars have
emphasized the continued role of People Power in political behavior. People Power has
been referenced not only in the revolution ousting Ferdinand Marcos and bringing
Corazon Aquino to power, but also in Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s challenge to Joseph
Estrada (Thompson, 2013). The continued use of popular uprisings to achieve political
ends has led to protracted instability in the political system of the Philippines (Thompson,
2013). Upon her re-election, Arroyo expressed hope that the instability caused by
repeated popular uprisings might be coming to an end; her hope was unfounded, as her
opponents continued to express their belief in popular uprising as an option (Gatmaytan,
2006). Coronel (2007) described “people power fatigue” after the failed attempts to
remove Arroyo from power in 2006, as the public came to realize that, 20 years on from
the fall of Marcos, they had neither a more accountable government or enhanced
economic prosperity. Additionally, people power led to an institutional vacuum at the top
and a return to the status quo at lower levels of government, with many of the same
lower-level leaders returning to power. Not all elites retained that power indefinitely; as
Thompson (2013) notes, successful electoral challenges to the old elites were not
uncommon, especially as the party system fragmented. Reid (2006) argues that the same
general blocs continue to exist within the Philippines, with cycles of contention between
the old guard and the new elites, leading to “widespread dissatisfaction with electoral
politics” but to a similar skepticism with people powered tactics that have failed to
produce meaningful or consistent change. The Philippines appears locked in an
alternating cycle of populist and reformist leaders (Curato, 2021). Furthermore, debate
continues about how Philippine democracy should be reformed. Federalism,
unicameralism, and a transition to a parliamentary system have been proposed (Coronel,
2007).
Acknowledging that there has been some research done as demonstrated above,
on the legislature on the Philippines, it remains relatively under-explored by scholars of

political science; possibly owing to tendencies, noted by Ziegenhain (2008) in his work on
Indonesia, to focus on executive politics when studying developing democracies.
Acknowledging the tendency to focus on executives, some scholarship provides useful
perspective on the legislature despite that focus. Croissant (2003) reviews the
presidentialist democracies of the Philippines and South Korea, to trace factors that may
influence the development of a delegative democracy in which the full delegation of
political representation is made to the president. Croissant describes the relationship
between the formal powers of the president vis-à-vis the legislature and the tendency to
develop a delegative democracy. Continuing Croissant’s work, Thompson explores the
relationship between the legislative and executive branches, examining the separation of
power in the Philippines for signs of either perilous gridlock leading to a Linz-ian
breakdown between the executive and legislature, or to a delegative democracy.
Thompson finds that the norms and structures of the Philippines make it much more likely
that a delegative democracy will develop, due to weak legislative parties and presidential
influence in the creation of legislative coalitions.
Additional research explores legislative behavior in the Philippines incidental to
other phenomena. Shin (2018) explores the relationship between the Philippine president
and congress, identifying that weak parties and presidential control over “pork-barrel”
appropriations mean that most legislation passes unanimously or near unanimously, as
legislators hope to preserve their access to appropriations to use for clientelist purposes
in their districts. Shin (2018) additionally notes that, even if a legislator were to want to
vote against a bill for programmatic reasons, it is difficult for the legislator to do so,
because “it is a norm in the Philippines Congress that legislators should help pass the
president’s bills” (p. 348-9).
When engaging with the legislature, research has tended to focus on factors
influencing the election of its members, or the behavior of legislators after election. The
implications of single-member districts in the Philippines have been explored by several
authors. Research has shown the relative importance of personal networks for election
to the House of Representatives, with candidates at the center of social networks meeting
with more electoral success (Cruz et al. 2017). The candidates’ centrality, paired with
weak party systems and the availability of appropriations funding, may itself have
implications for legislative behavior. House members are generally produced by local
dynasties, while Senators are elected by virtue of their national fame. As a result, research
shows that all members are empowered to behave individualistically while serving in the
legislature. Legislative institutions are underexplored relative to this work.

VII. Data
Legislative Approval Data
Indonesians have been sampled for the World Values Survey three times since
Indonesia’s transition to democracy, in 2001, 2006, and 2018. According to the World
Values Survey, Indonesians in 2018 showed tempered support for their legislature. In a
sample of 3,200 Indonesians, drawn from all major regions and islands, the World Values
Survey found that 15 percent of Indonesians had “a great deal” of confidence in their
parliament, 35.8 percent of Indonesians had “quite a lot” of confidence in their
parliament, 36.7 percent of Indonesians had “not very much” confidence in their
parliament, and 11.3 percent of Indonesians reported they had no confidence at all in
their parliament. Aggregating the positive and negative responses, 50.8 percent of
Indonesians gave a positive response to the question, and 48 percent of Indonesians gave
a negative response.
This moderate support represents a significant change from the previous survey
in 2006, when approximately 34 percent of Indonesians reported they had either a great
deal or quite a lot of confidence in the legislature, and 59 percent reported they had not
very much or no confidence in the legislature.
Filipinos have been sampled for the World Values Survey three times over the
same time period, in 2001, 2012, and 2019. According to the World Values survey,
Filipinos in 2019 showed significant support for their legislature. Filipinos attesting to
having “a great deal” of confidence in their parliament accounted for 19.6 percent of the
1,200 Filipinos surveyed; an additional 50.1 percent stated they had “quite a lot” of
confidence in their parliament. Meanwhile, 26.7 percent of Filipinos had “not very much”
confidence in parliament, and 3.6 percent had none at all. In the aggregate, 69.7 percent
of Filipinos have a positive view of their parliament, and 30.3 percent have a negative
view of their parliament.
Filipinos have generally shown positive sentiments toward their legislature during
the time period in question, according to the World Values Survey. Over the course of
these three surveys conducted over eighteen years, more than half of the population has
held a positive view of the legislature. In 2001, 60.4 percent of Filipinos reported they had
“a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the legislature; in 2012, that percentage
was 59.7.
Figure 1: Percentage of respondents reporting “a great deal” or quite a lot” of
confidence in their legislatures

Legislative Rules in Indonesia
Despite the fact that the Indonesian legislature is ostensibly comprised of two
chambers, the DPR is the chamber with the sole legislative burden on most pieces of
legislation, with assistance from the DPD on legislation specifically related to matters of
regional government or distribution of benefits across the country. The legislative rules
of the DPR are extensive, and include provisions for the management of the legislative
process in addition to requirements and procedures for selecting leadership, defining
ethical obligations, and establishing symbols and regalia of the chamber. The rules of the
DPR are publicly available, but only in Indonesian. I have therefore used Google Translate
to machine translate the document, using the program to verify the translation of
individual words as necessary.
The DPR’s legislative rules outline in significant detail the composition of several
committees. Among those committees are multiple subject-matter specific committees
and a Legislative Committee. This general legislative committee appears to take on the
role held by a Rules committee in other legislative systems, as well as additional agenda
setting responsibilities. Additionally, the standing rules specify a two-step process for the
consideration of legislation. While in Phase I, the committee with subject-matter
jurisdiction over the bill deliberates on the bill, focusing on a pre-set list of issues to be
resolved within the proposed legislation. Once a consensus has been reached on these
issues, or, unusually, a final version has been voted on by the committee, the bill proceeds
to Phase II, or consideration by the plenary session of all members of the DPR. Sherlock
(2010) notes, however, that in practice a bill does not pass out of committee to the
plenary unless all party caucuses have agreed to the version of the bill that will be
concurred to in committee. The two-phase process is, therefore, somewhat illusory.
Committee Hearings on Bills
The first indicator of openness is the presence of committee hearings on
legislation. In Article 58, the DPR establishes that its subject-matter committees may hold
committee hearings, at the request of the committee or the request of another entity.
Article 128 also specifies that committees may hold public hearings, but it does not
require that public hearings be held. Additionally, the legislative process requires
“discussion” at the committee level, which is not necessarily synonymous with an open
debate on legislation observable by the public. As Sherlock (2010) notes, the lack of open
discussion in committee limits inclusion in debate even among legislators, and limits the
transparency of the legislative committees. Furthermore, he notes that the positions
articulated during phase I deliberation are articulated by parties, not by individual
legislatures, further limiting transparency. Under these circumstances, with both optional
hearings by rule and with negotiation on legislation occurring outside of hearings by
practice, the DPR cannot be said to hold hearings in a meaningful way giving rise to voice,
transparency, interpersonal respect or trust.
Public Testimony at Committee Hearings
While the legislative rules of the DPR may give rise to the inference the public may
give testimony on legislation, provisions limiting participation significantly curtail the
opportunity for public testimony. The public is entitled, pursuant to Article 215 of the
standing rules of the DPR, to provide input on legislation under consideration at the
discussion phase. They may provide that input orally or in writing. However, that
entitlement is subject to limitations and constraints imposed by legislative leaders. Article
217 provides that committee chairs determine the number of people invited to give
testimony, and issue invitations to members of the public to testify. This forum is not an
open opportunity for public input; the control exerted by the committee, by rule, is such
that the committee would not be required to invite any or all interested individuals to
testify. Furthermore, the fact that committees are not required to hold hearings, but may
merely discuss legislation without a hearing, means that the right to provide input via a
public hearing is even more curtailed than suggested by these provisions. Considering the
totality of circumstances, the openness indicator of the opportunity to testify at
committee hearings cannot be said to be present in the Indonesian DPR.
Floor Amendments
By virtue of rule and practice, floor amendments are, if not prohibited, extremely
unusual in the Indonesian DPR. All draft laws, per Article 125, must be assigned to a
committee if they are to progress through the legislative process. This committee
assignment is necessary to facilitate the first stage of the two-step procedure established
by the legislative rules, in which a bill is first deliberated on by a committee, before
moving to the plenary for its consideration. The DPR further establishes by standing rule
that the decisions of the committees, if they have been reached, will be respected by the
chamber as a whole. Article 60 states that decisions reached by committees are “binding”
on the DPR and the Government. This largely comports with what scholars have reported
on the impact of the tatib on legislative procedure. Sherlock highlights the deference the
plenary pays to the committee, noting that the committee’s consensus, when reached, is
almost always respected. Given the deference granted to committee-based deliberation,
despite the lack of a positive rule prohibiting floor amendments, floor amendments are
not the norm in the Indonesia legislature. Therefore, this indicator of openness is present
in the Indonesian legislature.
Single Subject Rule
While the rules of the DPR do not prohibit the joint consideration in one bill of
provisions on different subject areas, due to other procedural requirements legislation
likely is single-subject in practice. The legislative committee is responsible for
management of many facets of legislative business; among those responsibilities, the
Legislative Committee receives draft bill proposals, and may consolidate related
proposals for ease of consideration. While the rationale for this procedure is absent from
the standing rules, it appears to be established for the efficient consideration of
proposals. Due to the role of the legislative committee in consolidating draft bills, it seems
unlikely that unrelated proposals would be considered simultaneously. Despite the lack
of any specific rule restricting the content of draft law, the involvement of the Legislative
Committee may have the effect of narrowing bills to single or closely related subjects, so
this indicator of openness is determined to be present in the Indonesian legislature.

Agenda Posting
The Indonesian legislature produces agendas in much longer increments than
individual committee hearings, and the rules do not appear to require individual agendas
for committees be posted in periods shorter than one year. The legislative prioritization
program, or Prolegnas, is determined in 5-year increments, the same as the length of a
term of service in the DPR, with sub-agendas created in one-year increments (Article 109).
The Legislative Committee creates this agenda, harmonizes and compiles similar concepts
into consolidated agenda items, and adds additional concepts to the agenda as they are
submitted. It also provides the rationale for introduction of draft legislation and sets the
priority of legislation to be considered (Article 109). Bills are discussed, or deliberated,
by a committee no more than two at a time, pursuant to Article 136. When one bill is
passed out of the committee, the committee is assigned an additional bill for its
consideration, pursuant to the annual Prolegnas. Draft laws that are not part of the
agenda may also be submitted if exigent circumstances exist. These circumstances include
ratification of an international treaty, to respond to the action of the Supreme Court, or
to address extraordinary circumstances, natural disasters, international or domestic
conflicts, or other similar urgent circumstances.
The Prolegnas do facilitate transparency and participation to a certain extent. The
agenda is submitted to the public and reported on in the media (Pangestika, 1/23/2020),
so they may be aware what legislative priorities will be considered in the coming year;
however, the agenda does not include all legislation that will be under consideration. In
a system that does not necessarily have mandatory committee hearings, the
development of these agendas may facilitate transparency. However, a citizen concerned
with an item on the agenda would need to review it and guess, based on public reporting,
the date at which the legislature would be considering that particular issue, to provide
timely feedback on an issue of concern. Under those circumstances, the Prolegnas cannot
reasonably be considered a rule on agenda posting for the purpose of facilitating
openness.
Table 1: Indonesia Indicators
Indicator Yes/No
Hearings No
Public Hearings No
Floor Amendments Yes
Single Subject Rule Yes
Agenda Posting Requirements No
Legislative Rules in the Philippines
The legislative procedure of the Philippines will be more familiar to observers of
the US Congress. Bills are introduced and referred to a committee with subject matter
jurisdiction over the contents of the bill. Bills are then referred out of committee to the
plenary session of the chamber, where they are voted on by the whole membership of
the chamber. They are then referred to the other chamber of Congress, at which point
the process is repeated. This legislative procedure is outlined extensively in the legislative
rules of both chambers, publicly available on the legislature’s web site.
Committee Hearings on Bills
The rules of the chambers of the Philippines Congress diverge on the necessity of
committee hearings for the purpose of evaluating legislation. The Senate of the
Philippines is required, pursuant to Section 24 of its standing rules, to hold hearings to
“discuss, decide, and submit a report on all matters transmitted to them.” Meanwhile,
Section 26 of the Rules of the House of Representatives states, “Committees shall study,
deliberate on and act upon all measures referred to them inclusive of bills, resolutions
and petitions, and shall recommend for approval or adoption by the House those that, in
their judgment, advance the interests and promote the welfare of the people.” This
provision, by its text, does not require committees to hold hearings on legislation. The
rules of chambers within one legislature may diverge on matters of procedure; however,
if one chamber gives the public the opportunity for voice, transparency, respect and
trustworthiness through the presence of an indicator, that indicator is present in the
legislature as a whole. Therefore, this indicator is judged to be present in the Philippines
legislature.
Public Testimony at Committee Hearings
Neither chamber’s rules obligate the chambers to hold hearings in which public
testimony is received on legislation. The rules of the House of Representatives specify
that “committees shall establish appropriate systems and procedures to ensure that
constituencies, sectors and groups whose interests are affected by any pending measure
are given sufficient opportunities to be heard. Committees shall pursue dialogues and
consultations with affected sectors and constituencies, conduct researches [sic], and
engage the services and assistance of experts and professionals from the public or private
sectors as may be needed in the performance of their functions” (Section 26). This
provision does not obligate a committee to consistently hold open hearings at which the
public can register their opinions on legislation under consideration, though it does
establish the importance of public involvement and may result in public hearings. Public
hearings, as referenced in the Senate rules, refer to hearings that may be observed by the
public, but not necessarily hearings in which the public may give testimony. Furthermore,
closed hearings, or “executive session,” are provided for in the Senate rules; there is a
procedure required to invoke those sessions, leading to a reasonable inference that public
hearings are the assumption, not the exception, in Filipino legislative procedure. Under
these circumstances, neither chamber of the Philippines legislature can truly be said to
require public testimony be received by the legislature.
Floor Amendments
Floor amendments, or amendments to legislation after the opportunity for public
comment at the committee level has passed, are allowed in both chambers of the
Philippines legislature. Floor amendments are expressly permitted by the Senate rules, in
Section 71. The permissibility of floor amendments is also established explicitly in the
House rules, in Section 56. This demonstrates a straightforward absence of the indicator
of openness prohibiting amendments be made at a legislative stage when the public will
not have the opportunity to offer their perspective on those amendments and indicates
an absence of transparency and fairness in the legislative process.
Single Subject Rule
The rules of the Philippines legislature explicitly require that legislation address
only one subject. Section 83 of the Rules of the Philippines Senate provides that “No
amendment which seeks the inclusion of a legislative provision foreign to the subject
matter of a bill” is permitted. Section 99 of the House rules provides similarly for
legislation under consideration in that chamber. The rules of the legislature are therefore
very clear in embracing this particular indicator of openness, lending predictability to the
legislation under consideration at any given time.
Agenda Posting
There is an identifiable requirement that agendas be posted in advance of a
committee meeting in one chamber of the Philippines legislature, but not the other. The
Senate rules require committees to establish a regular committee meeting schedule. The
rules also permit Senate committees to hold special, off schedule committee meetings,
but the date, time, and agenda for the off-schedule meeting must be circulated three days
in advance. The rules are otherwise silent on agenda posting, but given the specific
direction for special hearings, it would seem to be a reasonable extrapolation that the
rules do not require agendas be posted. In the House, however, Section 35 requires that
the date, time, location, and agenda of a committee hearing be established three days in
advance of a hearing. Additionally, members must be notified five days in advance of a

bill initially being taken up by a committee. When public hearings are held by the House,
notice must be given to the public, as far as is practical, three days in advance of the
hearing (Section 38). Because at least one chamber of the legislature mandates advanced
agenda posting, facilitating voice, neutrality, respect, and trustworthiness, this indicator
is present in the Philippines legislature.
Table 2: Philippines Indicators
Indicator Yes/No
Hearings Yes
Public Hearings No
Floor Amendments No
Single Subject Rule Yes
Agenda Posting Requirements Yes
Content Analysis Indonesia
Public reporting in the Jakarta Post, the premier English language news source in
Indonesia1, demonstrates both the public availability of information on how legislative
processes affect legislative outcomes, and that members of the Indonesian public, as
represented by experts and activists outside of government, have registered
1
Despite being an English-language media source, the Jakarta Post is representative of
information available to “ordinary” Indonesians. While published in English, the Jakarta
Post estimates that approximately half of its daily readers are middle-class Indonesians,
with the remainder being upper class Indonesians or expatriates.
dissatisfaction with the legislative process. Over a two-and-a-half-year span, the news
outlet reported on seven major legislative initiatives where information on the legislative
process was considered relevant to the outcome by the journalist and included in the
reporting. In five of those legislative initiatives, the Jakarta Post noted concerns of
activists, experts of the public with the legislative process used to develop those bills.
The availability of highly specific information about legislative procedure, in the
context of impact on particular legislative change, is demonstrated in the Jakarta Post’s
reporting on the consideration of the Sexual Violence bill (Janti, 2/19/2022; Nurbaiti and
Sutrisno, 7/2/2020; Suhenda, 9/8/2021). The prevalence of sexual violence and need for
a new approach were heavily reported on prior to consideration of the legislation. Once
the Legislative Committee had assembled a draft bill, along with the list of issues to be
addressed, activists and experts were able to review these materials and register their
concerns before the bill was referred to the subject matter committee. These activists
and experts were publicly critical of the legislation. However, deliberation at the
committee level was delayed, according to the DPR, because the President had failed to
send a letter necessary for deliberation to begin. The specificity of reporting shows that
sophisticated information on legislative procedure is available to the Indonesian public.
Furthermore, reporting on committee hearings also exists when hearings are held,
despite notes by scholars of Indonesia’s legislature that deliberation may be hard to
observe.
The Jakarta Post noted concerns regarding legislative procedure when the DPR
considered employment legislation, mining regulation, ethics legislation, and reform to

the powers of the anti-corruption body. Controversy over the Jobs law was explicitly
connected by legal experts and the press to a legislative process that was “reckless,
rushed […] excluded public participation and lacked transparency” (Syakriah, 11/3/2020).
The nature of the controversy was that drafting errors left the law impossible to
implement. The “swift and closed deliberative process,” according to experts and
activists, meant that mistakes were not caught, while lengthier deliberation before more
sets of eyes would have likely resulted in errors being identified, as is the case with other
pieces of legislation considered more slowly and openly (Syakriah, 11/3/2020). According
to the Jakarta Post, meetings where this piece of legislation was deliberated were closed.
The Jakarta Post reported that the Mining law was approved by the plenary in its second
state of deliberation on a Wednesday, with the final text to be deliberated being released
on the Monday prior (Harsono, 5/13/2020). Opponents, including environmental
lobbyists and legal scholars, claimed the deliberation discussion had been conducted in
secret and they had not been able to participate (Harsono, 5/13/2020). The Jakarta Post
noted that deliberation had been underway since 2015, but discussion of the most recent
draft had begun in 2019 (Harsono, 5/13/2020). In this case, activists and the media
deliberately noted the procedure that had led to some perspectives being shut out of the
legislative process and generating the specific outcome realized (Harsono, 5/13/2020).
Reporting on the Ethics bill noted both the “hasty deliberation” of the bill and the
potential impact on future elements of legislative procedure: “Article 229 for instance,
will allow lawmakers to have a closed-door meeting without any disclosure to the public.
Such a stipulation would further enable the House to ignore input from the public on the
deliberation of contentious regulations” (Aritonang, 7/14/2014). Finally, activists and
experts also pushed back against legislation amending the powers of the anti-corruption
body (Ghaliya, 9/17/19). The bill was deliberated quite quickly, in contrast, the reporting
noted, to lengthy deliberation of other bills.
Content Analysis the Philippines
Filipino reporting on legislation rarely includes information on the legislative
process beyond the identity of sponsors and the subject matter committee that reviewed
the legislation. The stark exception to this general rule appears in reporting on
appropriation or budget matters. In reviewing more than 600 articles from the Manila
Times, the oldest English language daily newspaper in the Philippines, numerous articles
may be identified describing the substance of legislation, across many subjects, with only
occasional reporting on the legislative process and next to no criticism of it.
The Manila Times provides significant coverage of the work of Congress. Examples
of standard reporting on legislative business include amendments to the Public Service
Act and development of a transportation project. In reporting on the Public Service Act,
the Manila Times described the changes to the law, going into significant substantive
detail, but did not describe the legislative process by which the law had been changed. It
engaged in extensive reporting on Congress engaging in its oversight features (Tolentino,
11/15/21). In one example, it reported on investigations into illegal trade in agriculture
implicating a member of Congress.
Three exceptions demonstrating the Manila Times’ usual tendency to report on
substance rather than process are its reporting on legislation dealing with oil
deregulation, fuel prices, and the budget process. The Manila Times described the
committee process while reporting on the Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act. The
article both illustrated the committee’s substantive role in the process and demonstrated
the committee’s role in advocating for legislation it developed (Cruz, 3/15/22). The Manila
Times’ reporting on fuel prices described the creation of a special “ad hoc” committee to
discuss prices and options to address them, and notes lawmakers recommending
Congress be called back for a special session (Gaylican, 3/13/22). Additionally, the Manila
Times engaged in significant procedural and substantive reporting on the budget and
appropriations process, arguably the most significant work in which Congress engages.
These instances demonstrate that, if they find it necessary or valuable, journalists at the
Manila Times will report on the legislative process, but it is not generally either necessary
or valuable.
The Manila Times does report on legislative procedure when elected officials
criticize legislative procedure as a mechanism of advocacy for or opposition to legislation
or courting particular constituencies. This appears to take the form of reporting on
advocates’ calls to pass legislation before the end of a Congress, which is less a critique of
procedure than a matter of substantive advocacy. Furthermore, the Manila Times
reported that legislators were recommending amendments to the media licensing law be
referred back to committee for further deliberation; however, it appears that in this case
legislators were concerned some members of congress were rushing through legislation
to circumvent other existing law. Under these circumstances, while the article did report
on criticism of legislative procedure, that criticism was of a substantive nature.

Additionally, the Manila Times reported on candidates calling for greater voice for
particular sectors in the policy development process; however, a lack of universality in
this demand makes it more likely that this is an electoral strategy than a principled stand
(Tolentino and Cruz, 11/30/21).

VIII. Analysis
When the legislative rules in Indonesia and the Philippines are analyzed, I find a
positive relationship between the number of indicators of openness and satisfaction with
the legislature. Furthermore, qualitative data on publicly available media reporting on
legislative procedure in both countries exhibits that the public in both Indonesia and the
Philippines has access to information on legislative processes in their respective legislative
branches, and that specific concerns with the legislative process for its own sake are
raised more frequently in Indonesia than in the Philippines.
The positive relationship between indicators of openness and legislative approval
is readily identifiable when the two countries are compared. Indonesia’s legislature
demonstrates two of the five indicators of openness in a legislature, and has an approval
rate of 50.8%. The Philippines legislature, meanwhile, demonstrates three of the five
indicators of openness, and has an approval rate of 69.7 percent. The Philippines’ higher
incidence of openness indicators in the legislature corresponds with a higher approval
rating for the legislature, whereas Indonesia’s legislature has both a lower incidence of
indicators of openness and a lower approval rating for the legislature. In the scatter plot
below, with the x axis representing legislative approval and the y axis representing the
number of indicators present in each legislature, the data point representing the
Philippines, which has both higher legislative approval and a higher number of openness
indicators, sits above and to the right of the data point representing Indonesia.
Figure 2: Relationship Between Legislative Approval and Indicators of Openness
Qualitative data from publicly available reporting in Indonesia demonstrate that
not only is information about the impact of legislative procedures on legislative outcomes
made available to the public, but members of the public, as represented by activists and
experts, are able to connect legislative procedures with the outcomes of those processes
when they are dissatisfied with those outcomes. Qualitative data from publicly available
reporting in the Philippines shows both less concern with legislative procedure but also
less frequently available information on that process. On the basis of the public reporting
I reviewed, it does not appear that legislative procedure in the passage of bills is a source
of public consternation in the Philippines.
The evidence this information provides, when combined with the positive
relationship between openness indicators and survey data on satisfaction, enhances the
likelihood that the relationship between indicators of openness and perceptions of

legitimacy is not merely correlative. Because citizens of Indonesia have access to
information about the process and demonstrably object to the process in some
circumstances, and citizens of the Philippines have similar information regarding their
legislative procedures and do not object to legislative procedure except as a vehicle for
particular substantive critiques on legislation, there is evidence that the relationship
between legislative procedures with indicators of openness and perceptions of legitimacy
of that procedure is causal.
Not only has a positive relationship between the independent variable, indicators
of openness in the legislative process, and the dependent variable, satisfaction with the
legislature, emerged, but qualitative data demonstrating the causal connection between
the two also exists. These data both confirm the hypothesis and lend weight to my theory
that procedural fairness in the legislative process is the primary driver of perceptions of
legitimacy in the legislature.

IX. Conclusion
This paper demonstrates both the correlation and causation between procedural
fairness as enacted in the procedural rules of the legislature and perceptions of legitimacy
as measured by perceptions of satisfaction with the legislature. In these two similar cases,
the legislature with more points of public opportunity to realize voice, neutrality,
interpersonal respect and trustworthiness in the legislature met with more public
approval than the legislature with fewer points at which the public could realize those
elements of procedural fairness. At the same time, qualitative data demonstrates the
public in both countries was able to be aware of their legislative procedures, and in only
the country with a less procedurally fair legislative process was there regular criticism of
the legislative procedure in public reporting. Therefore, the existing theory of procedural
legitimation is extendable to legislatures via their procedural rules.
This test has provided new information on the generation of legitimacy in an
additional sub-division of government. While drivers of legitimacy have previously been
interrogated either enterprise-wide or in bureaucratic sub-divisions, this study
demonstrates that the legislature’s legitimacy may be decoupled from the remainder of
the government in which it exists and is based on its own internal procedure.
Furthermore, it demonstrates that not any pre-established procedure may be followed to
confer legitimacy; it demonstrates that procedures generating perceptions of procedural
justice, i.e. those conferring voice, transparency, respect and trust, must be followed to
confer that legitimacy. This enhances existing study of legitimacy by lending weight to the
observation that procedural legitimation is key, but generates a new avenue of study of
legitimacy. If legislatures in presidentialist systems may be analyzed for their own
legitimacy, the same may hold for other governmental entities, particularly those
previously dismissed as generating their legitimacy through direct election.
This study has further, practical implications beyond the realm of political science
research. Much of the current study of democratic backsliding is to prevent further
descent in the world’s established democracies. From a practical perspective, this
research may inform democratic legislatures on how they might construct a brake.
Legislative procedure need not be determinative – indeed, Cox (2000) writes that under
most circumstances, endogenously created legislative rules should not be – but legislative
procedures enhancing perceptions of legitimacy by giving the public a greater opportunity
to realize voice, neutrality, trust, and interpersonal respect may increase public
investment in existing legislative procedures and temper public appetite for significant
anti-democratic change to their legislative structure.
That being said, without further insight into the practices of the legislature, and
the perceptions of the public on the effect of mechanisms, it proves difficult to assign a
binary value of presence or absence on the basis of the rules, even with supplemental
observations of the implications of the rules. The assessment is subjective, especially
when a legislature embraces alternate approaches to legislative process or prioritizes
other values, such as Indonesia’s prioritization of consensus. A simple binary assessment
of presence or absence may oversimplify the legislative process, and therefore may miss
how the legislature or the public interpret the rules as granting opportunity to give input,
view into the legislative process, feel respect, and trust their legislators. Those seeking to
expand this study would be wise to incorporate additional measures of practical
application in legislative procedure, not merely rules, to understand the true nature of
procedural provisions on both the business of the legislature and public perception of
legislative procedure.
The methodology of this thesis may need to be refined in order to apply to
democratic, presidentialist legislatures more broadly. These indicators, while closely
connected to procedural justice elements, were developed based on familiarity with
legislatures either in the United States or heavily influenced by the United States. In a
legislature like Indonesia’s, where legislative procedure differs significantly from that of
the United States due to Indonesia’s political culture, comparing procedures to indicators
required subjective decision-making. While the methodological concept is sound, I
believe I need to give more consideration to the effectuation of procedural justice
through legislative procedure before collecting further data on legislative rules.
Additionally, because a most similar systems method with two cases compared against
each other, with five data points analyzed in each case, provides limited data, the issue
of subjectivity in data points may be exacerbated. Because it is my intention to expand
this study to 35 presidentialist democracies, this problem may resolve itself somewhat
when the test is applied to a larger sample; however, I will consider additional data points
based on rules or norms so as to increase the independent variable data available.
Furthermore, expanding this test to 35 presidentialist democracies will allow this theory
to be tested in more diverse contexts with regard to public polarization and economic
performance, which represent possible confounding variables.

Ultimately, there is a wealth of data to be mined from legislative rules, existing
accounts of legislative procedure in practice, and public reporting on knowledge and
acceptance of existing legislative procedure. By connecting these sources of data, we
might further expand on, and prove the robustness of, this new theory of legislative
legitimacy through procedural fairness.

References
Aritonang, M. (2014, July 14). New law shields House members from corruption
investigations. Jakarta Post.
Beetham, D. (1999). Democracy and human rights. Polity Press ; Blackwell Publishers.
Buchanan, A. (2002). Political Legitimacy and Democracy. Ethics, 112(4), 689–719.
https://doi.org/10.1086/340313
Buehler, M., & Nataatmadja, R. (2021). Authoritarian diasporas in Indonesia and the
Philippines: Comparative perspectives on elite survival and defection.
Democratization, 28(3), 521–538.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2020.1832084
Bünte, M., & Ufen, A. (Eds.). (2009). Democratization in post-Suharto Indonesia.
Routledge.
Clucas, R. A., & Valdini, M. (2014). The character of democracy: How institutions shape
politics. Oxford University Press.
Constitution of the State of the Republic of Indonesia, 1945, (2015).
Coronel, S. S. (2007). The Philippines in 2006: Democracy and Its Discontents. Asian
Survey, 47(1), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2007.47.1.175
Cox, G. W. (2000). On the Effects of Legislative Rules. Legislative Studies Quarterly,
25(2), 169. https://doi.org/10.2307/440367
Cox, G. (2008). “The Organization of Democratic Legislatures.” In The Oxford Handbook
of Political Economy. Oxford University Press.
Croissant, A. (2003). Legislative powers, veto players, and the emergence of delegative
democracy: A comparison of presidentialism in the Philippines and South Korea.
Democratization, 10(3), 68–98.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340312331293937
Cruz, C., Labonne, J., & QuerubÍn, P. (2017). Politician Family Networks and Electoral
Outcomes: Evidence from the Philippines. American Economic Review, 107(10),
3006–3037. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20150343
Cruz, M. (2022, March 15). House panel Oks amendments to Oil Deregulation Law.
Manila Times.
Curato, N. (2021). Democratic expressions amidst fragile institutions: Possibilities for
reform in Duterte’s Philippines. Brookings.
Freedom in the World 2021 Methodology (Freedom in the World). (2021). Freedom
House.
Freedom in the World 2021—Indonesia (Freedom in the World). (2021). Freedom House.
Freedom in the World 2021—Philippines (Freedom in the World). (2021). Freedom
House.
Gatmaytan, D. B. (2006). It’s All the Rage: Popular Uprisings and Philippine Democracy.
Washington International Law Journal, 15(1).
Gaylican, C. (2022, March 13). Congress urged to suspend fuel tax. Manila Times.
Ghaliya, G. (2019, September 17). Breaking: KPK bill passed into law. Jakarta Post.
Gilley, B. (2006). The meaning and measure of state legitimacy: Results for 72 countries.
European Journal of Political Research, 45(3), 499–525.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00307.x
Gilley, B. (2014). The nature of Asian politics. Cambridge University Press.
Haerpfer, C., Inglehart, R., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano, J., Lagos,
M., Norris, P., Ponarin, E., & Puranen, B. (2022). World Values Survey Wave 7
(2017-2022) Cross-National Data-Set [Data set]. World Values Survey
Association. https://doi.org/10.14281/18241.16
Harsono, N. (2020, May 13). House approves revised mining law amid outcry. Jakarta
Post.
Horowitz, D. L. (2013). Constitutional change and democracy in Indonesia. Cambridge
University Press.
http://proxy.uqtr.ca/login.cgi?action=login&u=uqtr&db=ebsco&ezurl=http://sea
rch.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&AN=545623
Jacobs, D., & Kaufmann, W. (2021). The right kind of participation? The effect of a
deliberative mini-public on the perceived legitimacy of public decision-making.
Public Management Review, 23(1), 91–111.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1668468
Janti, N. (2022, February 19). House, govt to deliberate sexual violence bill after recess:
Puan. Jakarta Post.
Kawamura, K. (2011). Consensus and Democracy in Indonesia: Musyawarah-Mufakat
Revisited (IDE Discussion Paper No. 308). Institute of Developing Economies.
Langehennig, S., J. Zamadics, and J. Wolak. “State Policy Outcomes and State Legislative
Approval.” Political Research Quarterly 72, no. 4: 929–43.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918823284.
Laver, M. (2008) “Legislatures and Parliaments in Comparative Context.” The Oxford
Handbook of Political Economy.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548477.003.0007.
Lijphart, A. (2012). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-
six countries (2nd ed). Yale University Press.
Mcloughlin, C. (2015). When Does Service Delivery Improve the Legitimacy of a Fragile
or Conflict-Affected State?: Service Delivery and State Legitimacy. Governance,
28(3), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12091
Meares, T., Tyler, T., & Gardener, J. (2015). Lawful or Fair? How Cops and Laypeople
Perceive Good Policing. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 105(2), 297–
343.
Megawati, M., & Absori, A. (2019). The Authority of Decision Making of the People’s
Consultative Assembly Based on the Values of People’s Sovereignty in Indonesia.
International Journal of Innovation, Creativity, and Change, 10(2).
Meyerson, D., Mackenzie, C., & MacDermott, T. (2020). Procedural Justice and
Relational Theory: Empirical, Philosophical, and Legal Perspectives (D. Meyerson,
C. Mackenzie, & T. MacDermott, Eds.; 1st ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429317248
Muller, M., & Kals, E. (2007). Interactions between Procedural Fairness and Outcome
Favorability in Conﬂict Situations. In K. Y. T??rnblom & R. Vermunt (Eds.),
Distributive and procedural justice: Research and social applications. Ashgate.
http://www.dawsonera.com/depp/reader/protected/external/AbstractView/S97
80754686132
Nurbaiti, A., & Sutrisno, B. (2020, July 2). Public outcry as House plans to delay sexual
violence bill—Again. Jakarta Post.
Pangestika, D. (2020, January 23). House lists priority bills for 2020. Jakarta Post.
Population, Total—Indonesia. (2021). [The World Bank: Data]. The World Bank.
Population, Total—Philippines. (2021). [The World Bank: Data]. The World Bank.
Prior, M. (2021, October 3). Naive majoritarianism: Understanding beliefs about the
chance of policy adoption. American Political Science Association Annual
Meeting, Seattle, Washington.
Regulation about Code of Conduct, House of Representatives of the Republic of
Indonesia.
Reid, B. (2006). Historical Blocs and Democratic Impasse in the Philippines: 20 years
after ‘people power.’ Third World Quarterly, 27(6), 1003–1020.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590600850426
Richardson, L., D.M. Konisky, and J. Milyo. (2012). “Public Approval of U.S. State
Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 37, no. 1: 99–116.
Rood, S. (2019). The Philippines: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press.
Roxas, R. E., Borra, A., Cheng, C., & Ona, S. (n.d.). e-Participation towards Legislation:
The Case of the Philippines.
Rules of the House of Representatives, Philippines House of Representatives (2016).
Rules of the Senate, Philippines Senate (2016).
Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford University
Press.
Scheier, E. (2008). Evolving Patterns of Legislative Oversight in Indonesia. In Legislative
Oversight and Budgeting: A World Perspective. The World Bank.
Schmidt, V. A. (2013). Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited:
Input, Output and ‘Throughput.’ Political Studies, 61(1), 2–22.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00962.x
Shepsle, K. and C. Weingast. (1994) “Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions.”
Legislative Studies Quarterly 19, no. 2: 149–79.
Sherlock, S. (2010). The parliament in Indonesia’s decade of democracy: People’s forum
or chamber of cronies? In E. Aspinall, M. Mietzner, & Institute of Southeast Asian
Studies (Eds.), Problems of democratisation in Indonesia: Elections, institutions,
and society. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Sherlock, S. (2012). Made by Committee and Consensus: Parties and Policy in the
Indonesian Parliament. South East Asia Research, 20(4), 551–568.
https://doi.org/10.5367/sear.2012.0121
Shin, J. H. (2018). Legislative voting in the pork-dominant parliament: Evidence from the
Philippine House of Representatives. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 24(3),
338–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2018.1516923
Suhenda, D. (2021, September 8). Activists slam latest draft of sexual violence bill for
neglecting victims’ rights. Jakarta Post.
Syakriah, A. (2020, November 3). Jobs Law contains “at least tow fatal errors”, says legal
expert. Jakarta Post.
Taylor, Z. (2019). Pathways to legitimacy. Planning Theory, 18(2), 214–236.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095218806929
Thompson, M. R. (1996). Off the Endangered List: Philippine Democratization in
Comparative Perspective. Comparative Politics, 28(2), 179.
https://doi.org/10.2307/421980
Thompson, M. R. (2013). Presidentas and People Power in the Philippines: Corazon C.
Aquino and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. In Dynasties and Female Political Leaders
in Asia: Gender, Power, and Pedigree. Lit Verlag.
Thompson, M. R. (2018). The Philippine presidency in Southeast Asian perspective:
Imperiled and imperious presidents but not perilous presidentialism.
Contemporary Politics, 24(3), 325–345.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2017.1413503
Tolentino, Ma. R. L. (2021, November 15). House urged to review Meralco franchise.
Manila Times.
Tolentino, Ma. R. L., & Cruz, M. (2021, November 30). Include farmers in policy planning.
Manila Times.
von Soest, C., & Grauvogel, J. (2017). Identity, procedures and performance: How
authoritarian regimes legitimize their rule. Contemporary Politics, 23(3), 287–
305. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2017.1304319
Weatherford, M. (1992). Measuring Political Legitimacy. American Political Science
Review, 86(1), 149–166.
Ziegenhain, P. (2009). The Indonesian legislature and its impact on democratic
consolidation. In Democratization in post-Suharto Indonesia. Routledge.

Legislative Procedures and Perceptions of Legitimacy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legislative Procedures and Perceptions of Legitimacy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legislative Procedures and Perceptions of Legitimacy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Portland State University

Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses

Legislative Procedures and Perceptions of

Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds

Part of the Political Science Commons

Megan Elizabeth Cox

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

Portland State University

While mechanisms of legitimacy development have been extensively studied in

governments as a cohesive whole, procedural legitimation of the legislative branch has

not been explored. Using a procedural justice framework to identify indicators of

as more legitimate by its citizens as compared to a legislature with fewer indicators.

Comparing Indonesia and the Philippines, two presidential democracies in

opportunity to form opinions of legislative legitimacy based on the availability of

Indonesia, a positive relationship between indicators of openness and perception of

legitimacy is exposed. In the absence of other persuasive explanations of legislative

access to information on legislative procedure when forming their opinions on the

legitimacy of the legislature, the theory of legislative legitimation via procedure is

supported by these cases.

Table 1: Indonesia Indicators……………………………………………………………………………………….48

Figure 1: Percentage of respondents reporting “a great deal” or quite a lot” of

to do anything?” Citizens who contacted me were concerned, frustrated, and sometimes

In Palau, legislative rules were antithetical to both transparency and public

elapsing and no notice required to the public.

I observed that the comments of Palauan citizens, expressing dissatisfaction with

the legislature, appeared to be linked to legislative institutions, in particular legislative

procedures and perceptions of legitimacy of legislatures as a whole. The causal link

implicated by my anecdotal observations are supported by procedural justice theory.

Procedural justice theory, utilized more often by scholars of criminal justice or

consideration known and understand the views of legislators in return. Openness

procedures predictable. It also depends on informal institutional norms of behavior. I

theorize that procedural justice, as evidenced by openness of procedural rules, can

impact public perceptions of legitimacy of legislatures, just as it does in other institutions.

procedural justice by creating specific opportunities for transparency and public

analyze the legislative procedures and institutionalized practices of two presidentialist

those procedures and perceptions of legitimacy in the legislatures using qualitative

analysis of publicly available media reporting on the legislative process, to determine if

the legislative procedures exert a causal effect on perceptions of legislative legitimacy. I

that if a legislature demonstrates more identifiable indicators of openness in their

legislative rules and practices, perceptions of legitimacy, as indicated by data on public

legislatures not presenting indicators of openness.

fairness by detecting indicators of openness to public participation, the legislature with

legislature with fewer procedural instances of openness. Furthermore, the existence of

procedure and dissatisfaction.

Global Concepts: Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Democracy

An examination of the impact on procedural justice on legitimacy of national

detailed aspects of governance.

There is no lack of research on the presence or the construction of legitimacy as

system-wide phenomena. This extensive research, however, has not generated

“multiple, interconnected, and context-specific” (McLaughlin, 2015). Many

categorizations of legitimacy generation methods exist; many include a category of

consistent observation of rules through which legitimacy is generated. While the

legitimation compared to other identified legitimation methods, however, is not

Similarly, existing scholarship has not settled on the appropriate evaluative

perspective to employ when analyzing the phenomenon of legitimacy. While some

characteristics, while the bottom-up framework centering the experiences and

perceptions of citizens as the metric by which legitimacy can be measured.

methods by which we might evaluate public opinion on legitimacy, he observes that

institutions may be reflected in survey data on legislative approval.

Previous scholarship has demonstrated that people evaluate governmental