Three contenders for chief justice meet with Arroyo today

The three contenders in the race to be the next chief justice will get a chance today to meet with President Arroyo, the only person in the country who has the final say on a replacement for retiring Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.

Davide is set to leave his post on Dec. 20, when he reaches the mandatory retirement age of 70.

Associate Justices Artemio Panganiban, Reynato Puno and Leonardo Quisumbing are scheduled to join the participants of the three-day International Conference and Showcase on Judicial Reforms in meeting with the President, scheduled at 7 p.m. today in Malacañang.

The three contenders for chief justice will be interviewed by the eight-member Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) on Dec. 1 before submitting their names to Mrs. Arroyo, who will make the final decision.

There are 129 delegates — including 39 chief justices and heads of delegations — from 45 countries attending the conference, which started last Sunday and is being held at the Shangri-La Hotel in Makati City.

Lawyer Marlon Manuel, spokesman for the Supreme Court Appointment Watch (SCAW) and the Transparency and Accountability Network (TAN), said the meeting between Mrs. Arroyo and the three contenders for the post of chief justice is symbolic "because the judiciary will have in the next few weeks an important role in deciding controversies involving the President. But at this time, the President appears to be holding the judiciary in her hands because she, in the next few days, will appoint the next head of the Supreme Court."

Manuel said while the President has the power to name the chief justice, the Supreme Court has the power to determine the legality of some of her policies — such as Executive Order 464 that bars government officials from appearing in congressional hearings without her express permission and the so-called "calibrated preemptive response" against street protesters — as well as the authority to resolve the impeachment case against her.

"We would like to look into their judicial philosophy, (such as) how they will lead the Supreme Court and the judiciary as a very important agent of the government system and what type of leadership they will offer," he said.

The SCAW, a coalition of lawyers monitoring the selection of the new chief justice, is funded by the United States Agency for International Development and the Asia Foundation.

The lawyers’ group has started profiling the contenders’ achievements and positions on critical issues in its bid to de-politicize the appointment of the next head of the judiciary.

"Whether we like it or not, the selection of the next chief justice will still be a political issue and we have to be more vigilant in the selection process," Manuel said.

The SCAW said Panganiban wrote the ponencia for the Supreme Court ruling invalidating the Commission on Elections’ multimillion-peso contract with a private company to computerize the 2004 elections.

Manuel said Panganiban and Davide were behind the alleged "hasty" oathtaking of Mrs. Arroyo immediately after then President Joseph Estrada was ousted in January 2001.

Estrada filed a petition before the Supreme Court against then Ombudsman Aniano Desierto and Mrs. Arroyo, questioning the latter’s oathtaking since the position of president was not vacant.

Panganiban and Davide took no part in the March 2, 2001 voting on Estrada’s petition.

Puno, the most senior among the contenders for chief justice, penned the majority opinion in the Estrada case. The Supreme Court ruled that Mrs. Arroyo’s assumption into office was valid since there was a vacancy when Estrada left his office and had effectively resigned.

Quisumbing held the deciding vote on several Supreme Court rulings, such as the dismissal last March of the election protest filed by the late movie actor Fernando Poe Jr. against Mrs. Arroyo.

Quisumbing also voted for the issuance of a temporary restraining order against the implementation of the controversial Republic Act 9337 or the expanded value-added tax law. He concurred with the majority upholding the constitutionality of the EVAT, but voted to declare some of its provisions unconstitutional.