Accountability

Facebook reminded me that six years ago I wrote a column about accountability in relation to the impeachment hearings of then chief justice Renato Corona. Things have not changed for the better. What I wrote about the need for Supreme Court accountability is as relevant today as it was then.

I also wrote about the need for the Supreme Court to uphold its dignity and independence, if it wants to get the people’s respect. Unfortunately, as we saw in recent weeks, SC justices were ready to surrender judicial independence to mere politicians because they simply hate the current chief justice.

Here is that column updated and edited to comply with column space limitations recently imposed by the newspaper.

I see the Supreme Court as just one more human institution subject to human failings and as such must always be accountable for its actions. 

The law is what the Supreme Court says it is. Even when they are obviously wrong? Yes, even if the SC is wrong, it is right… because it is at the foundation of law and order in a civilized society.

What about check and balance? The Constitution has been so designed to make sure no branch of government gets too powerful… the other branches are there to balance each other out.

The Supreme Court may seem like it always has the last word, but Congress can exercise its power over the purse on the Supreme Court. Or Congress can exercise its right to impeach the members of the Court.

The Executive branch can control budget releases. The Executive branch also controls the police and the armed forces and the Court, a toothless tiger, needs these resources to implement its decisions.

The real power of the Supreme Court over the two other branches is its moral ascendancy… it is supposed to be above the normal political fray… a collegial body of wise men (and women) with no other interest other than to see justice is delivered.

The Court’s prestige fell apart when martial law was declared in September 1972. Soon enough the Supreme Court chief justice was holding an umbrella over the head of the First Lady.

Actually, the martial law Supreme Court did worse. It ratified the dictatorial decrees of Mr. Marcos, giving legal imprimatur to our loss of civil liberties and allowed a kleptocracy of cronies to thrive. It failed to live up to its role as the defender of our constitutional liberties. Unlike the heroic wartime chief justice Jose Abad Santos, the martial law justices preferred not to peek into the barrel of a gun.

Martial law ended, but somehow the Supreme Court was never really quite the same again.

The framers of the Cory Constitution tried to give the judicial branch more power and independence. Instead of a public congressional vetting of appointments to the courts, there is a Judicial and Bar Council entrusted with the task.

Our experience during the post-EDSA years shows that the JBC enabled whoever the president wanted to appoint, to get in the JBC short list. GMA was known to send back the list to include her chosen one. With the JBC, the Supreme Court actually lost its independence from the Executive branch. A president can pack it with politically compromised justices.  

The Constitution has also given it the power to, on its own, delve into actions of the other branches whenever it thinks there is abuse of discretion. But it seems more inclined to give its imprimatur to things like declaration of martial law without carefully examining compliance to constitutional requirements.

Yet, there is no one a citizen can run to and complain about abuses or mistakes of the SC because it is the last word. Some people are warning of a dictatorship, it seems the SC will allow it to happen.

Worse, the justices are onion skinned. A journalist who did an in-depth report on the inner workings of the Supreme Court was sued for libel. What lower court judge would dare go against a sitting SC justice? SC justices should not be too sensitive about criticism because it is the only remaining way to keep them honest.

The midnight appointment of its chief justice by the Arroyo administration totally politicized the Supreme Court.

Impeachment is part of the Constitution, it is a process designed to make the members of the court accountable. But the Arroyo and then the Aquino and now the Duterte administrations have politicized the process so much as to vastly diminish the high court’s dignity.

I am all for respecting the Supreme Court, the institution. But respect is earned. The SC must always be able to rule from a moral high ground, something it had lost these many years. Gone are the days when a justice caught plagiarizing quickly resigned.

No longer is the interest and the reputation of the court placed above that of any of its members. When another justice was also caught plagiarizing, the Supreme Court, acting like a fraternity of juveniles, censured the UP professors who thought he should resign. Times have indeed changed and definitely not for the better.

I agree with my colleague Peter Wallace when he wrote in his Manila Standard column that “the law is the servant of society and is obligated to act in a manner that is best for society.” 

The country’s economic development depends on a Supreme Court worthy of our respect. No investors, local or foreign, will risk capital in a country where the judicial system is iffy and many times like an auctioneer looking for the highest bidder.

Business needs certainty. As Peter pointed out, “the Philippines has to break out of the morass it’s now in, but it won’t with the court system that now exists.”

 Boo Chanco’s e-mail address is [email protected]. He is also on Twitter @boochanco.