Supreme pick

It's that time again when we sit at the sidelines and watch, with fascination and trepidation, the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice. Much like a fashionista drugged out on a reality show like America's Next Top Model or the Runway Project, this spectacle hooks lawyers and pundits, and we get lots of drama, hand wringing, and spats, albeit on a more dignified scale (or so they'd like to think).

This year, the parade of candidates is led by at least seven justices from the Court of Appeals. From this seven, there is at least one woman, Nina Antonio Valenzuela, which is good news for the feminists. I say at least, because there's another feminine sounding name among the list, Rosmari Carandang, but the fact it's spelled that way and not Rose Marie gives me pause. (Too lazy to Google search).

Other women candidates include Grace Pulido Tan, the chair of the Commission on Audit, Rowena Guanzon, another audit commissioner, and a justice from the Sandiganbayan, Maria Cristina Cornejo.  So that's at least four out of the fourteen names so far, which makes a better than 25% chance for a woman to make it. (Too lazy to do the math).

Are there any gay candidates?  I don't know (and if I did, I wouldn't tell you, out of respect for his or her privacy). But it would be good to have a gay justice appointed, if only to bring another perspective to the penumbra of the court.  (I am presuming all the sitting justices are straight. Which is admittedly presumptuous of me.). President Noynoy Aquino looks like the sort of man who wouldn't break a sweat at the thought of critics from the Church moaning about his choice of candidate if that candidate just happened to be gay. (Having a faghag for a sister might have something to do with it, but I would like to think he's just that sort of man).

Where are the academicians?  De la Salle law school dean Jose Manuel Diokno is on the list, but I am unsure of his credentials as a legal scholar as opposed to an administrator for a school. (You guessed it. Too lazy to research).  Are there no full-time professors worthy of being considered for the highest post in the judiciary?  Or has the political process dismissed the academe as a less than useful source of future connections?

I would like to see top faculty members, eminent scholars, and published authors considered. Not that I do not think the credentials of the existing nominees are strong, as they happen to be very impressive, but having the intellectuals on board would add another dimension to the field.

In the United States, extensive background checks are run on nominees by both the nominating bodies as well as the press. We are treated to dissections of the nominees' opinions on hotbed issues, if they are sitting judges, and then on that basis, they are judged if they are worthy. Democrats and Republicans finesse their candidates, running loyalty checks as well as likeability surveys to make sure the other camp won't find any weapon to sink the nomination.

So far, I haven't seen that scrutiny being performed by the press on our candidates, which is a pity, as I would like to know what the politics and viewpoints of the nominees are. This is specially important in predicting future behavior and opinions by the appointed justice, as well as to see whether support (mine specially) should be thrown behind this or that nominee.

For example, if that candidate is beholden to certain politicians, then it would be better to nip that candidacy in the bud. Or if the candidate is weak in the brains department, well, duh!  If the candidate isn't willing to separate Church from state, then surely we should stir them towards the frock. But the press has been lazy (let's throw stones, shall we) and all we get are regurgitations of resumes. Well, I can do that myself, so come on press, start digging.

The President seems to have a penchant for choosing alumni from the University of the Philippines, and we will see if this year continues that streak. Or will he choose graduates of other law schools? It doesn't matter to me, actually, so long as he chooses people of ultra competence. For far too long, this power was used by President Gloria Arroyo to bestow rewards or prestige on those who weren't intellectually or ethically up to the challenge of steering the highest court to a realm beyond moral question.

Pnoy picking for the right reasons will only improve the court. And, as they so grandly pronounce it, the laws of the land.