Last bulwark

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines and the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines denounced yesterday threats reportedly being received by Newsbreak’s multi-awarded chief journalist, Marites Vitug.

The threats, sent through text messages, coincided with the release of Marites’ latest investigative work, “Shadow of Doubt,” which puts the spotlight on the Supreme Court.

Other books have been written about the nation’s court of last resort, mostly by retired justices. But this one is of particular interest because of its timeliness. The book gives readers an insight into the dynamics in the Supreme Court, which are at work amid the controversy over its recent ruling on the constitutional ban on midnight appointments.

The book also relates how justice in this country has been weakened by influence-peddling. Politicians, religious groups, big business and other moneyed interests, and the appointing power have turned justice in this country into an instrument of power and a tool for protecting and expanding personal wealth.

Going beyond coffee-shop talk, Marites has laid down her story in black and white, naming names and citing specific dates, events and judicial cases. The book is a magnet for libel suits from the nation’s top magistrates, with support from notorious influence-peddling groups, and a magnet for security threats, which Marites has started receiving.  

Her account of the inner workings of the judiciary – the least transparent among the three branches of government – can be depressing. It tends to prove our worst fears right – that justice is for sale and is not blind in this country. The book gives us an idea of why the rule of law cannot prevail and why it is so hard to create a merit-based society in our democracy.

The saving grace is that certain members of the judiciary, who are identified in the book, have stood up for what is right over the years.

“Shadow of Doubt (Probing the Supreme Court)” has been launched as the SC finds itself mired in its lowest point since the martial law-era Supreme Court issued a ruling that validated the 1973 Constitution and effectively legitimized Ferdinand Marcos’ one-man rule.

* * *

So far neither the country nor the judiciary has collapsed since Chief Justice Reynato Puno took a “wellness leave” from the SC following the voting on midnight appointments.

Defenders of the SC ruling, which allows President Arroyo to appoint Puno’s replacement once he retires on May 17, even without a list of nominees from the Judicial and Bar Council, insist that the high tribunal cannot afford a leadership vacuum for even one day, even if the Constitution gives the appointing power 90 days within which to fill vacancies in the judiciary.

The SC has in fact functioned without a chief justice several times in the past. In those cases, the most senior associate justice always served as acting chief justice, in accordance with Section 2 of the Judiciary Act.

The longest vacancy lasted much longer than 90 days, when Querube Makalintal took over from Roberto Concepcion, who went on leave 50 days before his scheduled retirement on April 18, 1973. This was shortly after the martial law Constitution was upheld by the SC through Javellana v. Executive Secretary. Makalintal served in an acting capacity until he received a permanent appointment as chief justice, assuming the post on Oct. 21, 1973.

In 1970, Victorino Mapa took over from Cayetano Arellano for three months, from April 1 to July 1. Enrique Fernando, Imelda Marcos’ umbrella boy, also took over for more than two months from Fred Ruiz Castro, from April 19 to July 2, 1979.

In 1986, shortly after the people power revolution, Claudio Teehankee, who had sworn in Corazon Aquino as president, served as acting chief justice from March 7 to April 2. He was eventually sworn in to replace Felix Makasiar. During the Marcos regime, Teehankee was also acting chief justice for 15 days in May 1985 while Fernando was away.

Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, in her lone dissenting opinion, argued that the 90-day period may even be deemed suspended during the election period and can actually start when a new president has been sworn in, which is at noon on June 30. This gives the next president, who is expected to be known by May 17 (barring a failure of the automated elections), three months to pick a new chief justice.

The wording of the constitutional provision governing midnight appointments is simple and crystal-clear to a non-lawyer like me. It needs no interpretation; all it needs is application. But it must be another reflection of the decline in our English proficiency, that a one-paragraph provision in our Constitution, written clearly and in a concise way, can be “interpreted” by SC justices in their preferred way.

Even records of the deliberations on that issue by the framers of the Charter will bear out our understanding of the intent of the provision, as pointed out by Fr. Joaquin Bernas, a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, and by Carpio-Morales in her dissenting opinion.

When Puno, who is painted in an unflattering light in “Shadow of Doubt,” went on leave, the most senior associate justice, Antonio Carpio, became acting chief justice on March 18, a day after the ruling on midnight appointments was released.

Carpio has voted against the Arroyo administration in several major cases, which has raised suspicion that the controversial ruling was rushed before he assumed the top SC post. The Judicial and Bar Council, which will nominate candidates for chief justice, also cancelled its meetings set on March 22 and 29, and will meet only on April 5 in Baguio City, when Puno’s leave is over.

It is unfortunate that the integrity of the nation’s highest court is now – to borrow a phrase from Marites Vitug – under a shadow of doubt. But exposing the rot to public scrutiny could lead to a thorough cleanup of an opaque institution. The scrutiny should make the judiciary stronger and more effective – a true bulwark of democracy.