An 'outsider' for Chief Justice

As this piece went to press yesterday, the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) was in a closed -door session, engaged in a painstaking process of paring down the nominees to the post of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to a shortlist of three names. Any nominee should at least have six votes to be in the shortlist. These names will, in turn, be submitted to P-Noy, who will appoint one of them to be the head of the Highest Tribunal of the land.

The President has to name the new Chief Justice no later than Aug. 27, a few weeks from now.

The process is thus not ended yet and, for the sake of our readers, we will ventilate one issue that has drawn the line that spells the difference between having real reform in the Judiciary, or maintaining the status quo. This means that we will have the same “old boys’ network” that has characterized our officials in robes for some years now.

We do not begrudge our current sitting justices in the Supreme Court their academic and career credentials, their knowledge of the law and their experience and voting track record.

On credentials, the “insiders” stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Chief Justice nominees who are called “outsiders”. Many of them landed within the top five in their Bar performance. Their schooling also has shown that some of them were either valedictorian or salutatorian, graduating therefore at the top of their class, in some of the top law schools in the country.

Thus, on academic and career credentials, plus their knowledge of the law, the insiders and the outsiders are in a virtual tug-of-war, and the score is even.

And yet when we look at the voting record and experience, this is solely applicable to the insiders in the High Tribunal. This leaves the outsiders showing no track record in that department. Is this a decided edge for the sitting SC justices?

 A more appropriate question is: “Will this spell the difference on who should be the next Chief Justice?”

 Here lies the weakness, not the strength, of a sitting SC Justice who is also a nominee for the highest post in the Third Branch of Government. Some experts are asking: How can a sitting Justice begin an earnest reform drive among peers who have been comfortable with the way things are?

If one reads the mind of President Aquino  who wants to see thoroughgoing reforms in the Judiciary beginning at the top  your guess is as good as mine: The President will go for an “outsider.” The supposed advantage of the current justices turns out to be their own Achilles’ heel.

What rankles our memory was the collective decision of the Supreme Court stopping the Senate Impeachment Court from opening the dollar accounts of then impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona. Individually and collectively, the High Tribunal stands as an “old boys’ network” protecting its own.

At a critical juncture of our history, the incumbent justices chose to protect their peer who was obviously guilty  and to protect any threat of their own dollar accounts being pried open. Our people cannot help but rue that day when the justices chose to keep faith with their own, and not with the people who want the truth about Mr. Corona’s huge undeclared assets.

So, what remains are outsiders that the President will consider for the post. Almost everyone knows the credentials of some legal luminaries in the ranks of the nominees.

On top of my mind is Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza, whose peers recognize and respect as a legal scholar and luminary. His integrity and even-handedness is renowned in the corporate and litigation community. His academic credentials (salutatorian in his law class in UP Law) and Bar rating (third placer) assures us he can easily win the respect of the sitting Justices  and so they can concentrate on dispensing justice fairly and fast. We expect neither bickering nor divisiveness in the Court.

Then, there is Rene Sarmiento, current Commissioner of the Commission on Elections, who passes the test of character and integrity. There is no bankruptcy in the choice of outsiders to be named Chief Justice. Dean Amado Valdez also comes to mind. It is unfortunate that he engaged in an altercation with one of the JBC members, and yet the irrepressible Dean stood his ground, a quality that will go either way in a contentious Court.

This is the President’s golden opportunity to appoint a Chief Justice  and so the reforms can have a fresh start, with a fresh face  without the baggage of the past. After all, within his six-year term, this is the only chance P-Noy can again change the course of history of the Philippine judiciary when, guided by the light of wisdom from above, will make one bold move to name someone who will be the “knight in shining armor.”

There is no chink yet in that armor, to charge ahead and bring a new vision, and a fresh resolve to extricate the Supreme Court from many entanglements  and then lead his peers to the higher purpose of justice for all. 

Who among these three have the three qualities of legal scholarship, the temperament of a Chief Justice and the integrity in character that will restore our people’s trust in the Highest Tribunal of the land? Mr. President, the historic choice is yours!

*      *      *

I’m putting out two letters from readers in response to my column titled “Justice with a Heart,” August 2, 2012 issue.  

From Fred Bagbagen of Baguio City: “What we need is a Chief Justice that will outlaw technicalities especially in the Supreme Court.

It is said that every lawyer has a sad story to tell, but the saddest story is for your petition to be dismissed (nonchalantly?) due to a defective verification. Except under very exceptional circumstances, it would do well for the Supreme Court to have all the ears and patience to listen to petitioners who come before it, being their last hope, it being the court of last resort. Would dismissing petitions just because of a defective verification serve the ends of justice? Does that satisfy the constitutional mandate that no one will be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process? Indeed, was due process served? Dismissing a case due to  a mere technicality is trifling with justice, it is heartless! Ang kailangan natin ay chief justice (CHIEF PRIEST) who has a PRAYERFUL heart that ALL cases before him/her will be decided fairly  which cannot be done through technicalities. Technicality is the anti-thesis of justice and should be outlawed! Technicalities, how many injustices have been done in your name!” 

From my friend Jerry Quibilan: “Two of the candidates for the position of CJ were nominees of, among others, former Sen. Rene Saguisag. They are Justice Roberto Abad and former Congressman Ronaldo Zamora. I hope that whoever will be chosen will not only able to interpret the letter of the law but the spirit of the law. And this is basically what I think is the meaning of justice with a heart.” 

* * *

My e-mail:[email protected]