Collegiality

Much of government’s work is performed through collegial bodies. The latter is defined as a governmental entity whose power is vested within its membership. So unlike a single decision-making authority such as Office of the President, collegial bodies decide by obtaining a majority consensus among its members. Some of the more famous collegial bodies include the Supreme Court, the Houses of Congress and constitutional commissions such as the Comelec, Commission on Audit and the Civil Service Commission. While collegial bodies are led by presiding officers such as the Chief Justice, the Senate President, the House Speaker and various chairpersons who are “primus inter pares” or first among equals and possess greater administrative discretion, still his or her vote is just as valuable as that of the other members.

Collegial bodies are supposed to conduct their business with collegiality and in a collegial manner. The noun “collegiality” emphasizes the shared authority between three or more persons who comprise the body. Outside of government, there has traditionally been a strong sense of collegiality in the faculties of higher educational institutions where independent-thinking and mutual respect for various opinions and points of view are encouraged.

This leads me to the adjective “collegial” which is how such bodies should perform their functions (no, collegial does not refer to those studying in college). Deliberations and discussions should be conducted in an atmosphere of mutual consideration among colleagues. Disagreements are allowed, even encouraged, but should be manifested in a non-disagreeable manner. Note that I prefaced this paragraph with the phrase “supposed to” as unfortunately, collegiality and the collegial spirit are sometimes missing in their proceedings.

* * * *

Let us now zero in on two collegial bodies — the 24-member Commission on Appointments (CA) led by the Senate President and the seven-person Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) led by the Chief Justice. Both perform a similar function — that of vetting presidential appointments with the CA acting on certain top-level appointments to the executive branch and the JBC recommending potential appointees to the judiciary. The CA acts after the fact. The President makes an appointment and submits the same to the CA for confirmation. On the other hand, the JBC screens judicial aspirants and submits a list of at least three names for every vacancy. The President then chooses a name from such list. Both serve as a check and balance to the appointment power of the President.

The CA and the JBC are collegial bodies and perform their functions through the majority vote of its members. Yet both have formulated rules which tend to undermine the collegiality of their decision-making process.

The (in) famous section 20 of the CA Rules provides:

“SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION OF NOMINATIONS OR APPOINTMENTS. Any member may move for the suspension of action by the Commission on any nomination or appointment favorably recommended by a standing committee and the Chairman shall suspend the consideration of said nomination or appointment: Provided, that, such suspension may be taken up on the next succeeding session of the Commission; Provided, further, that this section shall not apply to nominations or appointments taken up by the Commission during the last session prior to an adjournment of Congress.”

Subject to certain limitations, this rule essentially gives a veto power to each of the CA members in the confirmation of a Presidential appointee. The one seeking suspension of consideration of a nomination does not even have to provide a reason or justification. Pundits claim that section 20 was a mechanism used to extract favors or projects particularly from “resource-full” departments. The constitutionality of this practice is now in legal doubt given the recent Supreme Court decision discussed below.

* * * *

The JBC rules give its members a veto as well in Rule 10, section 2 of JBC-009 which provides:

“VOTES REQUIRED WHEN INTEGRITY OF A QUALIFIED APPLICANT IS CHALLENGED.— In every case where the integrity of an applicant who is not otherwise disqualified for nomination is raised or challenged, the affirmative vote of all the Members of the Council must he obtained for the favorable consideration of his nomination.”

* * * *

Apparently it was then Senator Aquilino “Nene” Pimentel who authored this provision. As widely reported, this rule was recently used to block the inclusion of then Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza in the list of the names to be submitted to the President for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. In an unprecedented move, the Solicitor General sought the En Banc’s assistance, claiming that he was not given the opportunity to air his side in respect of the issue of integrity. In a “down-to-the-wire” 7-4 vote last Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted Jardeleza’s petition and ruled that his due process rights were indeed violated. The full decision has not been released but it would seem that part of the rationale for invalidating the rule is that it went against the JBC’s collegial nature of the JBC. Jardeleza was appointed Supreme Court justice the following day.

Whether or not Jardeleza’s appointment will increase the collegial spirit in the High Court remains to be seen. Logic dictates the opposite given that the two most senior justices had opposed his nomination. At the very least, this will probably lead to greater “independent-mindedness” among the justices vis a vis the appointing power and each other. And the fact that the Chief Justice administered Justice Jardeleza’s oath of office and was reported to have personally toured the new justice around the Supreme Court bodes well for the maintenance of civility and collegiality among the gods of Olympus.

* * * *

Farewell:  Bon Voyage to Raul Ilustre Goco, former Solicitor General, Ambassador to Canada and the first dean of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila College of Law, who left his earthly shell last August 16.  We will miss his sarcastic wit and cheshire smile.  He leaves behind his secret weapon of 55 years, Marietta Primicias, and five children who are all accomplished professionals and entrepreneurs. 

* * * *

“If we’re all on the same page, no one’s

reading the whole book.” – Andy Hargreaves

* * * *

E-mail: [email protected]