EDITORIAL - The last bulwark

Back in May 1998, shortly before the general elections, then President Fidel Ramos tried to fill vacancies in the regional trial courts and the Supreme Court. Ramos was re-buffed by then Chief Justice Andres Narvasa, who also headed the Judicial and Bar Council. When Ramos tried to force the issue, arguing that the constitutional ban on mid-night appointments during elections applied only to executive positions, the full court went along with Narvasa in his interpretation of the ban. But the rebuff in connection with SC positions was not contained in an official ruling. Instead the SC nullified Ramos’ appointment of two judges to regional trial courts, saying it violated the constitu-tional ban on appointments.

Yesterday the SC qualified its own ruling. In a landmark decision, the court went along with the government’s position that President Arroyo could appoint a new chief justice even during the period of the election ban. If poll automation turns out to be a success, the new president would be known by the time Chief Justice Reynato Puno reaches the mandatory retirement age on May 17. Should the caretaker president, invoking the SC ruling, still pick Puno’s replacement?

The nation will only know when Puno, who has taken a sabbatical, steps down. If the President goes along with the argument of the solicitor-general, a new chief justice will be known a day after Puno retires. The solicitor-general had cited SC tradition, pointing out that vacancies in the post of chief justice did not last a day in the cases of Claudio Teehankee, Pedro Yap, Marcelo Fernan, Andres Narvasa, Hilario Davide Jr., and finally Puno’s predecessor Artemio Panganiban.

Those chief justices, of course, did not retire during election periods covered by a constitutional ban on presidential appointments. This battle isn’t over; lawyers are set to file a motion for reconsideration of the ruling yesterday.

The Supreme Court is seen as the last bulwark of democracy. Filipinos may distrust their president and lawmakers, but public trust in the court of last resort must not be eroded. When this issue is resolved with finality, the Supreme Court must emerge stronger instead of suffering from institutional damage.