All that talk that justices ought to be independent misses the point. Of course, they have to be independent, that is a given. But being independent does not mean that the worth of their opinion depend on how much they contradict the government. Being independent means can be either in agreement or in disagreement with the appointing powers. It does mean that the decision is a result of serious deliberation and a wide ranging perspective on the interests of the nation. It relies on the integrity of the justice and his track record.
But independence is not synonymous with mindlessness that is the kindest of what can be said about former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban decision on People’s Initiative 2006. Yet baying sectors of public, encouraged by political partisans from the opposition. seeking to preempt any serious and sincere study of the issues involved in judicial decision-making attempted to preempt any decision of the new chief justice that would not support their own agenda. Its objective was simple. If the decision did not agree with this baying public, it could not be independent and could only be motivated by gratitude to the appointing powers which selected him as the new chief justice.
The contradiction escapes them that this approach to judicial decision could be just as dependent and partisan. The only criterion for decision is whether after much study and understanding the conflicting theories and views, the justice involved would rise above the din and in quiet, decide guided only by his conscience. This Chief Justice Reynato Punto did in his decision People’s Initiative 2006. He did his homework covering every aspect of the issue at hand from both historical and contemporary perspectives. He then synthesized the facts on hand under one dominating idea – and quoting from US Justice John Marshall said that above all we were expounding a constitution.
Contrast Puno’s exhaustive presentation with Justice Panganiban who is being extolled as an ‘independent’ justice. I am told that when deciding on the second motion for reconsideration it took all of 10 minutes, maybe even seconds or however long it takes to say, "Ladies and gentlemen, anyone of you who wants to change their votes," and when no one among the eight came forward to do so, the 2nd motion was immediately dispatched." This is what is being purveyed around as ‘independence’ as more virtuous than a respectable assessment of the issue on hand. But then looking at the intellectual qualities of the justices who voted against the people’s initiative do you wonder why? A case can be made as well on their ‘lack of independence’ because most of them hewed close to those who had appointed them from the Erap appointee to Tita Cory’s protégé.
Granted that this was a simple majority and there is little we can do if Justice Panganiban should have wanted to play to the grandstands by casting his vote against People’s Initiative 2006 but let me say that it is not my kind of independence – it was mindless and nothing to be proud of.
Who among the justices truly understood the profound meaning of ‘expounding a constitution." How many would have understood that by implication this overarching principle cannot be bogged down by technicalities. We were seeking the philosophical moorings of our nation. That is why I do not believe that it will be so easy to scare this chief justice with popularity or independence. Indeed I hear that his parting words after the majority denied the motion for reconsideration was to remind his colleagues that 10 justices had accepted the sufficiency of R.A. 6735 and therefore did not need to be revisited. When he accepted his new post I am sure that he was fully conscious of the implications of the acceptance of R.A. 6735’s sufficiency. Couple that with his insistence that the people’s voice is sovereign in a democracy. Yes, it is neither too soon nor too late to let the people speak and you have the promise and awakening for a new people’s initiative.
When I last saw Speaker JDV, he looked crestfallen, after spending sleepless nights while the issue of Charter change through constituent assembly was being debated up to wee hours in the morning. Ricky Carandang in his ANC show likened him to Icarus so close to victory only for it to be snatched from him. But I do not know who lost more when constituent assembly was shelved to the back burner. But it will not take very long when he will rise up again to re-start his advocacy for parliamentary government in the Philippines as he had time and time again.
He has worked for parliamentary government for years and will continue to do so until this is accomplished. As a four time speaker he understands how important negotiation is to democratic management. The trouble is this is not easily understood by the public who are misled about glib interpretations of negotiation. Indeed, Speaker JDV is without equal in having shepherded the most important bills both in the Ramos administration and now under President GMA that accounted for economic advances for the country.
It is this background of democratic negotiation that underpins his support for parliamentary democracy. His impatience to get constitutional reforms done comes from his conviction that we need unicameral parliamentary government such as those found in countries in Europe and Asia to get things done. Unfortunately, there are too many vested interests in this country determined to stop the Speaker JDV’s vision of the Philippines which as he says passionately in his talks around that country could become a first world country given a different structure of government.
Sadly, Speaker JDV is more widely appreciated abroad where he has had immense successes in creating parliaments. He is the driving spirit behind efforts to unite Asian countries under a parliament. More recently, at a parliamentary conference in Tehran he takes pride in securing Iranian president’s willingness to begin talks with the United States on the intractable nuclear problem.
There were many who watched him seamlessly present the substantive issues of Charter change in Ricky Carandang’s ‘The Big Picture’ and went away convinced that the man was right: If Speaker JDV has fought so hard for Charter change he is convinced these are required to put the country in step with the times. He is focused on an agenda that could rescue millions of Filipinos from grinding poverty. Although the debate has focused on the shift from presidential to parliamentary government, this only comes second to how we could attract more foreign investments and create jobs for Filipinos
Ironically, unless a parliamentary system is in place, investors are hesitant to plant their flags here. From time immemorial, political reformers mouth concern for the poor as the centerpiece of their campaigns to get elected, yet we see little change. What does it mean to be poor? It means not having enough basic food, clothing, shelter or good health and some education. Everyone should at least know how to read and write, add and subtract. Many of our poor lack either one or all of these.
With these standards in mind, the Philippines is the poorest in ASEAN and needs to be lifted out of it in the nearest possible time. That is the reason for Speaker JDV’s driving mission and obsession for parliamentary government.
My email is cpedrosaster@gmail.com