Justice in crisis

The tug-of-war regarding the Supreme Court’s issuance of a temporary restraining order that would have allowed the former first couple to travel is one of the most dramatic episodes that has ever happened in this country. The Tuesday night media frenzy at the NAIA opened a floodgate of debates and legal questions — all of which will have far reaching effects either good or bad in a judicial system that is already riddled with so many infirmities.

It was clear even to the ordinary “man on the street” that the opposing camps were engaged in legal maneuvers — and it would seem that the Aquino administration outmaneuvered former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo who herself is known to be a master “maneuverer.” Malacañang suspected that even before she vacated the presidency, GMA has long prepared a strategy — including running for Congress — which would help her avoid facing accountability for alleged past misdeeds during her presidency.

Suspicions that Gloria Arroyo was trying to evade arrest were reinforced even more at the haste by which she tried to leave the country a few hours after the TRO was issued, seemingly prescient by having a ready cash bond of P2 million, one of the preconditions set by the high tribunal in issuing the TRO. How the SC voting went — 8-5 — likewise gave the impression that battle lines were also drawn within the Supreme Court, with the eight justices who favored the issuance of the TRO all appointed by the former president. Supreme Court insiders said the five dissenters — three of whom were appointed by President Noy — felt that government was not being given a “fair shake” by the refusal of the majority to wait until after oral arguments have been made before issuing a decision. 

What this administration did took a lot of determination and political will, because it could have created a major political crisis with far reaching consequences no one would like to see. It was clear that the president knew he had the backing of the majority of Filipinos judging from polls saying they did not want FPGMA to leave the country. Fortunately, the military had also lost its taste for adventurism — with the AFP leadership expressing support for the Commander-in-chief.

P-Noy made it clear from the start that he has a mandate to fulfill: rid the country of corruption and make erring officials accountable for their misdeeds. Obviously, he has made his predecessor a primary target. That is not to say though that public perception or opinion should have precedence over the law — which this administration was almost at the brink of doing. Fortunately, it was able to secure a warrant of arrest in the nick of time.

President Noy has also made no bones about his total distrust of the Supreme Court, and this was further reinforced when most of his administration’s initiatives were set back by an unfavorable ruling from the SC — perceived by many Filipinos as an “Arroyo court” because most of the justices, including Chief Justice Corona, were appointed by Gloria Arroyo. There is also no denying that the courts have been suffering from a credibility problem, with the perception especially among the poor that the law favors those who can afford to pay their way. After all, it’s no secret that TROs have been used and abused by many people who can afford it to suit their agenda. As one Ateneo classmate pointed out, in this country, you don’t need a lawyer who knows the law; you need one who knows the judge.

Even former US Ambassador Frank Ricciardone openly criticized our judicial system, saying corruption within the courts has been a huge barrier in attracting foreign investments into the country. This sentiment seems to hold true even to this day judging from the recent tagging of the Philippines as one of the worst countries to do business in mainly because the judicial system is perceived to be unstable. No wonder the Partnership for Growth agreement which the Philippines and the US signed during the recent visit of US State Secretary Hillary Clinton stressed the need to strengthen the rule of law and for an efficient court system as parameters that must be met to achieve economic growth — all of which aim to assuage foreign investors that the country has a stable, “streamlined court system” that can deliver justice and protect businesses.

However, one bad effect that could arise given that the credibility and the authority of the Supreme Court is on the line vis-à-vis the “showdown” with the Executive branch, is that there is always the possibility that people will try to interpret the law the way they want to. In which case, such erosion of belief in the integrity and power of the courts can make people believe what they want to believe. Who knows, they can even say that rape is nothing but mere sexual harassment, or murder could be rationalized as just a simple act of mercy killing. The recent developments surrounding the Arroyo TRO issue may give people the impression that the Supreme Court is not “supreme” when it comes to interpreting the law, and that the Legislative branch is now an “investigative” body since all it is perceived to be doing is “investigating.”

With all the developments that almost led to a major constitutional crisis, the need to overhaul our justice system is urgent. Every year, more and more people are added to the population and the need for strict adherence to the rule of law will be even greater. Otherwise, the alternative will be horrific — the rule of the mob.

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]