Every change in government brings about excitement, restlessness, some anxiousness and hope. Expectations soar high and at the end of the day we shall face the reality of what has become of it.
The experiences we went through during the impeachment trial have enlightened us and have made us more conscious of government’s wayward systems and ethics. It has given us a ray of hope (even if just a little) that our leaders today will evolve into a higher level of morality as we look forward to a better tomorrow.
I am constrained to write one more time about the just concluded impeachment proceedings against the now convicted and permanently “excused” former Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines, neither to exacerbate the pain of the defeated nor to exalt those who claim victory, but to dissect the final chapter of the top-grossing telenovela and note the lessons learned from it and what must be done in order to get this country right on track.
The defense lost not because the defense lawyers bungled their job, although they may have really committed a blunder in presenting the Ombudsman and the Chief Justice himself. The prosecution, on the other hand, won not because they did a good job. From the explanations of the votes, it was evident that without the admission of the Chief Justice on his $2.4M and P80M, the amusing “small lady” and “evidence left by the gate” stories of the prosecution would not have earned for them a conviction.
Clearly, the admission of the undeclared large amounts brought the case into the realm of ill-gotten wealth. The Chief Justice’s failure to declare his millions in his SALN was not viewed as an honest “minor” mistake (that could be corrected by a simple amendment) but a serious impeachable offense.
At the end of the day, I think it was the Chief Justice who brought himself down. He volunteered too much information leading to several admissions in his very long opening statement. His “waiver” offering was good but he tripped when he posed a condition that challenged the other officials to do the same. He should have just stuck to himself. Then many misunderstood his “health” condition as a “walk-out” which turned the mob against him. With such a medical condition he should have gotten more sympathy but the opposite seemed to have happened.
While technically the Chief Justice may still seek judicial succor by way of the extra-ordinary remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court allowing a challenge to an un-appealable judgment but only on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, he accepted his fate as a true gentleman. To his credit, the acceptance of the verdict saved the Philippines from a possible constitutional crisis, in the event the high tribunal would have a different view.
His unconditional waiver, although belated, should not also be ignored. Our government officials, including the high and the mighty, should likewise execute a waiver, this time in favor of the Ombudsman, for the latter to have access to their bank accounts in connection with a case against them, if any. They must sign such waiver even before they start becoming government agents of change in this country.
All eyes are on the president now. Everyone is eager to know who P-Noy will appoint as Chief Justice. Among P-Noy’s campaign promises are judicial reforms, highlighted with his slogan “kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap.” Many will be dismayed if his appointee is not known for honesty, integrity, incorruptibility and irreproachable conduct. He must think carefully and look at the track record, reputation and character of the next chief justice so that he can truly give the Supreme Court a new look of respectability with the quality of his appointee.
The conviction and removal of the Chief Justice should not be the end of the story, but the beginning of a genuine reform not only in the judiciary but in the government. The Constitution requires that a member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence. Yet when I asked a lawyer to name some of them, it took him a long while to mention the names of Justices Muñoz-Palma, Teehankee, Vitug, Callejo, and Puno. Noticeably, I didn’t hear a name of an incumbent justice. I’m pretty sure this lawyer is not a fan of any of them. Then he adds: “gone were the days when even the lowest judge in the judiciary commands high respect” and “it is now literally whom you know and not what you know”. He has a point!
In the past, many in the legal and business communities were aghast by the JBC nomination and appointment by previous presidents of applicants so notorious that even from afar they smell like garbage. Is the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) ineffective in its principal function of screening competent and independent applicants of unquestionable integrity and probity for appointment to the judiciary? Is it necessary for an applicant to the judiciary to get the endorsement of a senator, a congressman, a governor, or the leader of a religious sect? Is there theoretical independence on the part of the recommending and appointing authorities? Are Filipinos lacking in vigilance necessary to safeguard public office as a public trust? Did the system fail to inculcate the basic values of good governance? Is an act of impropriety in public service simply condoned as a way of life?
Help me find the answers as we all learn from the Corona impeachment. In the final analysis, no one truly won the battle. We all lost a bit of ourselves. Together, we should pick up the pieces and move on to a better future of hope. The government should look at ways of improving the selection and appointment process and the public should be more vigilant to ensure that “A member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence”.