Incongruous body

One of the promising innovations in the 1987 Constitution is the creation of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). It is supposed to insulate the judiciary from politics by removing from the members of Congress the power to have any say in the appointment of judges and justices through the powerful Congressional Commission on Appointments (CA). It is also meant to curb the Executive Department’s appointing power by limiting the President’s choice to the list of at least three nominees prepared by the JBC. The idea is to improve the quality of appointments in the judiciary, to get the best, the brightest and most qualified individuals beholden to no one thus ensuring a dispensation of justice without fear or favor. But it seems that until now, the desired improvement still remains to be seen. People’s confidence in our justice system and their low esteem to the men in robes has not remarkably risen as expected despite the creation of the JBC.

The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) actually acts as a screening committee that sifts through the qualifications of aspirants to judicial posts for the proper recommendations to the appointing authority. In carrying out this task, it may really have to conduct "job interviews" of the prospective appointees. Interviews are indeed one of the most effective ways of determining the most qualified. But is it necessary to open the interview to the public? Is the ability to speak and answer questions before a large crowd an important criterion in gauging whether an aspirant will ably and creditably do his job as a judge or justice of our courts? This is the controversial issue hugging the limelight now especially in connection with the JBC’s recent frustrated attempt to interview the ranking Supreme Court (SC) justices in line to succeed outgoing Chief Justice (CJ) Artemio V. Panganiban who are automatically included in the list to be submitted to the President. And they have every reason to snub said interview.

Opening the interview to the public in general is not really that imperative for the screening process of JBC. It may just degenerate into a circus and create an atmosphere similar to a market place. More in keeping with the dignity of the position and the importance of the process of selection is to open it only to those who may have some written objections made under oath so they can prove them during the interview. Actually the present announcements being publicized for interviews of nominees to vacant judicial posts already serve this purpose. These announcements invite only those who may have objections. In fact even the press coverage should be regulated to maintain the same kind of solemnity as in any court proceedings. Definitely, the recent spectacle created in that JBC public interview of the nominees for the CJ positions is not the kind of interview that serves the JBC’s purposes. The five SC justices who politely snubbed the interview are correct in doing so.

Aside from giving the public the opportunity to air their objections if any, JBC interviews primarily enable the JBC members to go beyond the glowing but phlegmatic words contained in the bio-data of a candidate for a judicial position. Through these interviews the JBC members get the chance to have a more accurate and closer assessment of his character, personality, judicial temperament and philosophy. In the case of the five SC Justices, the JBC already had that chance. All these Justices have been previously interviewed by the JBC perhaps not only once but several times especially if they rose from the ranks. By now, with the various decisions they penned, the JBC members must have a working knowledge of their judicial beliefs and convictions. In fact the public may also have a well founded inkling of their doctrines through the high profile cases they wrote that generated wide media coverage. No purpose will be served if they will be interviewed again as nominees for the CJ position.

This is not the case however of Senator Santiago who is also applying for the position. She has never been previously subjected to an interview by the JBC. While she was once a Judge of the Regional Trial Court, there was no JBC yet at that time to interview her. By allowing herself to be interviewed she would not have placed the five SC Justices at a disadvantage. On the contrary, by declining to be interviewed, she may have disqualified herself.

But the more valid reason for the correctness of the five SC Justices’ stand is the degrading effect of their interview. Under the Constitution, the JBC is under the supervision of the SC. And the top honcho in the SC is no other than the CJ. Thus, if the 5 SC Justices allowed themselves to be interviewed, the JBC members are in effect interviewing not only a Justice of the body that has supervision over them but also a Justice who is the potential boss of that body and therefore their potential boss also. Indeed this is not only degrading but absurd.

Perhaps it is timely to once more focus the public attention on the JBC and scrutinize the reasons behind its apparent failure up to now to live up to its raison d’etre. Aside from four regular members composed of a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired member of the SC and a representative of the private sector, it has three ex-officio members composed of the Chief Justice as Chairman, the Secretary of Justice and a representative of Congress. Immediately noticeable in this membership composition is the presence of the political element in the manner of choosing them. Except for the representative of Congress, all of them owe their appointment to the President. In fact the appointment of the regular members must also have the approval of the powerful Congressional Commission on Appointments. Thus it cannot be said that in its choice of nominees to the judiciary, the JBC is entirely free from political meddling and undue influence.

The JBC’s membership composition and the manner of choosing them should therefore be reviewed and changed. It must only have regular members all appointed by the SC with the CJ as the ex-officio Chairman. Otherwise, reverting back to the old setup where appointments to the judiciary pass through the prying eyes of the CA looks better and more preferable as it is more transparent. To be sure such setup is actually in place now although in an indirect and covert way.

E-mail us at [email protected] or [email protected]