No such thing as Arroyo court

Congratulations are in order for Chester Cokaliong in connection with the 20th anniversary tomorrow of Cokaliong Shipping Lines. Chester steered the company from scratch to what it is today, one of the country’s most modern fleets, and definitely the cleanest. Cheers.

* * *

Two recent Supreme Court decisions have generated the kind of controversy that made them new springboards from which critics of President Arroyo are able to launch fresh attacks against her.

One, which ruled that early campaigning does not apply to the 2010 elections, virtually allowed a "free-for-all" that favors the moneyed candidates. The other, which said appointive officials may not resign if they seek elective office, could give them undue edge over others.

Because of the unintended effects of these decisions, critics found new ammunition to fire away at the president, in view of the fact that she appointed almost all of the justices in the present court.

Admittedly, the president may be fairly and deservedly criticized for many things. But it is most unfair and grievously wrong to criticize her over the appointments she made to the High Court.

Those who criticize her mercilessly over these appointments are being mentally and morally dishonest. They conveniently gloss over the fact that the president actually has no choice but to appoint new justices to fill up vacancies when they occur.

And occur they did with regularity during the many years that she has been in office. Yet the job of appointing members of the judiciary is a ministerial one. It has to be performed the moment it presents itself.

But given the huge unpopularity of the president, it has become a damned-if-you-do, damnded-if-you-don't proposition. Arroyo would have been remiss, and consequently flogged just the same, if she did not fill up the vacancies.

Another thing the critics conveniently overlook is the fact that the president does not pluck appointees from thin air nor ticks them off from some secret list of boot-licking loyalists or ass-kissing sycophants.

She determines who to appoint from a short list prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council made up of justices, lawyers and private sector representatives whose composition she has no hand in doing.

In fact, the council is headed by the chief justice, in this case Reynato Puno whose independence and integrity is not only widely acknowledged but sit well with the critics of the president themselves.

So, how come, if Arroyo has to be taken to task for the appointees she named to the High Court, the JBC, and the chief justice primarily, are not being similarly taken to task when they are responsible for drawing up the list of nominees from which she merely takes her pick?

All Supreme Court justices have always been appointed by whoever is the sitting president at the time the need to appoint someone surfaces and it is unfair, to the president and to the justices themselves to cast aspersions on something that is a product of an unavoidable process.

Whether or not the appointing power has a hidden agenda at the time he or she makes an appointment does not detract from the fact that an appointment can be made only from a list prepared by somebody else, and only at a time when a vacancy occurs.

It is not as if Arroyo is able to fire at will any justices she does not like and then replaces them with those who will do her bidding. There is a process in the appointment of justices, and while presidents may come and go, the process is there as it always has.