No disloyalty by Jardeleza

MANILA, Philippines -  The Supreme Court (SC) has cleared Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza of allegations of disloyalty or betrayal of the country in his handling of the West Philippine Sea case as solicitor general.

In the 35-page decision that paved the way for the appointment of Jardeleza to the high tribunal last month, the high court ruled his handling of the case against China in the United Nations arbitral tribunal was a legal strategy.

The SC held Jardeleza’s move to exclude the Taiwan-occupied island of Itu Aba from the 4,000-page memorial before it was submitted to the UN tribunal in The Hague last March was not an act of disloyalty to the Constitution as alleged by Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno.

The chief magistrate, as chairman of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), objected to Jardeleza’s nomination to the council, pointing out the allegations of disloyalty.

The high court dismissed the Chief Justice’s allegation as “disagreement in legal opinion.”

“Consonantly, a lawyer is not an insurer of victory for clients he represents. An infallible grasp of legal principles and technique by a lawyer is a utopian ideal. Stripped of a clear showing of gross neglect, iniquity or immoral purpose, a strategy of a legal mind remains a legal tactic acceptable to some and deplorable to others,” read the ruling penned by Associate Justice Jose Mendoza.

While Jardeleza’s strategy was opposed by the legal team, the high court said “no connection was established linking his choice of a legal strategy to a treacherous intent to trounce upon the country’s interests or to betray the Constitution.”

“Verily, disagreement in legal opinion is but a normal, if not an essential, form of interaction among members of the legal community. A lawyer has complete discretion on what legal strategy to employ in a case entrusted to him, provided that he lives up to his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence, and that he exerts his best efforts to protect the interests of his client within the bounds of the law,” the SC pointed out.

The high court added the President, who has the final say on the conduct of the country’s advocacy in the case and is in the best position to suspect a treacherous agenda, “has given no signs that Jardeleza’s action constituted disloyalty or a betrayal of the country’s trust and interest.”

The high court also overturned the decision of the JBC that such act of Jardeleza was an issue of integrity and morality that could be ground for disqualification under Section 2 Rule 10 of the council’s rules.

“It has no direct bearing on his moral choices,” it stressed.

The SC also held the JBC’s application of this rule – which requires a unanimous vote from its seven members before candidates with integrity issues could be short-listed – on Jardeleza violated his constitutional right to due process.

The SC said the JBC “violated its own rules of procedure and the basic tenets of due process” when it denied Jardeleza the right to be informed of the issues raised against him and given ample time to prepare for his defense.

“These circumstances preclude the very idea of due process in which the right to explain oneself is given, not to ensnare by surprise, but to provide the person a reasonable opportunity and sufficient time to intelligently muster his response,” read the ruling.

As a result, the high court ordered the JBC – which is under its supervision as a “constitutional innovation” – to review such rule.

Seven justices agreed to this majority opinion, which was promulgated last Aug. 18 but released only last Thursday.

Jardeleza is set to start his duties as junior member of the high tribunal today after taking a two-week leave since his appointment last Aug. 22 to wind up affairs in his previous post.