Judicial lapse

There must be some inaccuracies in the news report about Supreme Court (SC) Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban admitting a "judicial error" in affirming the death sentence of Leo Echegaray. The Chief Justice could not have possibly made such kind of admission especially regarding a case that has long been finally resolved by the SC itself and has even been irrevocably carried out.

There is always the danger of a misinterpretation when a statement is plucked out of the entire text and isolated from the surrounding circumstances and occasion under which it was made. In this particular case, the alleged "admission" was made during the discussion of the pros and cons regarding the capital punishment of death.

Before Congress repealed the law imposing death penalty for heinous crimes, many judges and justices are already averse to the imposition of death penalty for a number of reasons. Some believe that it is a cruel and inhuman punishment. Others would like to preserve the sanctity of life and to recognize the primacy of the individual’s right to life over the gravity and nature of the offense he may have committed. Many jurists also adhere to the theory that considers punishment as reformative and preventive rather than retributive and vindictive. They believe that a heinous criminal is only a sick man who needs to be cured rather than an enemy against whom society must protect itself by taking his life in retribution for his despicable offense and as an example and warning to others. And there are also many among our judges and justices who recognize their own human weaknesses and imperfections such that despite diligent and honest to goodness exercise of their duties, they realize that their judgments may not be absolutely infallible. So they would rather not impose the death penalty because they are fully aware that such punishment when carried out is beyond recall; it is irreversible and irretrievable. They know that to err is human so they would rather err on the side of life.

The existence of the death penalty law however left these pro-life jurists with no other recourse but apply said law even if the possibility of having committed a "judicial error" lurks at the back of their minds. In fact a Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge in Manila lost his job (or did he give it up?) for refusing to apply the death penalty law on an accused he found guilty of committing a heinous crime punishable by death.

In the Supreme Court, when death sentences are brought up for automatic review, the decisions are considered the opinion of the whole court (per curiam). So an affirmation of a death sentence imposed by the lower courts means that based on the facts proven it is the unanimous opinion of the justices that the accused deserves the punishment of death because it is the penalty fixed by law for the crime committed. But even with such per curiam decisions, some SC justices have consistently maintained their stand against the imposition of the death penalty in cases brought before the SC like the Echegaray case precisely because of the possibility of human error. It is in this light that the utterances of the Chief Justice should be taken. It is more of a personal stand against the death penalty due to a belief in the unreliability of human judgment than an official admission of a judicial error committed by the SC in the Echegaray case.

To be sure the Chief Justice could have avoided any controversy by refraining as much as possible from making any public statement. Indeed, the judiciary is the branch of government that needs not much public exposure in the performance of its functions. Yet because of the dearth of information about the justice system, people have acquired the impression that justice is beyond their reach. Thus the Chief Justice cannot really be blamed if once in a while he makes some public appearance and airs his views because even before he became the Chief Justice, he already wanted to bring the judiciary closer to the people. And there is no better way to achieve this than through the press despite all its hazards.

* * *

E-mail [email protected]