Independent

Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our democracy. The framers of the 1987 Constitution, looking back at the experience with dictatorship, made sure judicial powers of review were emphatic in the new order.

President Aquino does not seem to appreciate that point when he opened the possibility of amending the Constitution precisely to clip the powers of the weakest branch of government. Reinforcement of the weakest branch of government is this Constitution’s only strength.

That desire to clip judicial powers happens within a specific context, however.

Rumors swirled about how incensed Aquino was over the Supreme Court’s adverse ruling against the “disbursement acceleration program” (DAP). He had somehow expected his appointees to the High Court would somehow toe the party line.

That expectation is entirely misplaced. The rule of law operates on its own plane, by universal application and not by whimsical exception. Had the Court catered to Aquino’s whim, it would have been irreparably discredited. The entire superstructure of the rule of law would have been compromised.

Aquino, however, has proven to be a man governed by his own peeves than by a profound grasp of the requirements of nationhood.

So it is that when Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza was appointed associate justice last week, people saw this as Aquino’s way of getting back at Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno. That perception might be unfair to Jardeleza, a lawyer respected for his skills even as he articulated the government case in favor of DAP.

Jardeleza’s path to a seat on the High Court was a dramatic one. He was taken off the shortlist because of “integrity issues” raised by Sereno. With a day left for the President to name a new associate justice, the Supreme Court en banc voted to reinstate him in the shortlist. Hours after, Aquino named his solicitor general to the High Court.

Before that quick turn of events, it was expected that COA chairman Grace Pulido Tan would be chosen. Chief Justice Sereno wanted her, obviously — although, given the recent turn of events, doomed her. Sereno’s blessings suddenly became a kiss of death.

The Monday before, during COA’s flag-raising ceremonies, Pulido Tan delivered what sounded like a valedictory. Insiders say she was packing her things, expecting the new assignment. When Jardeleza’s appointment was announced, only Pulido Tan, of all the nominees, issued a statement saying she was not disappointed. That is the best indication she was.

Jardeleza, for his part, has not explicitly said he would inhibit himself from the deliberations on government’s motion for reconsideration on the DAP ruling. Since he was party to this case, the decent thing is to inhibit. Immediately after taking his oath of office, Jardeleza went on a two-week leave to wind up his work at as Solicitor General — understandable, considering the swift turn of events.

The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling on the DAP and the Aquino administration’s brazen effort to beat down the tribunal into submission produced, quite remarkably, a more assertive judiciary. The judiciary defended its fiscal autonomy and the Court, a few days ago, slapped down that petty insistence by the BIR Commissioner to review the justices’ SALN.

There is now increased public confidence, whatever Jardeleza’s appointment may mean, that the Supreme Court will be more assertively independent. That is how the Constitution imagined it should be.

Earn it

Respect, as we know, is always earned. It cannot be a gift of the law of unintended consequences.

The judiciary is not the most pristine section of the public service. That is conceded. The Supreme Court must persevere in its own work of reform, unrelenting and with better proficiency.

The judges, after all, will also be judged.

The task of reforming the judiciary is daunting. Laboring on a shoestring budget, this branch of government needs to build up its own infrastructure. Procedures need to be improved. The inept and the corrupt must be purged.

The backlog in pending cases is horrendous as it is. When they said the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow, we did not imagine it to be this bad. Sometimes, it seems, the wheels hardly move.

One major factor clogging up the court system is the sheer volume of lower court decisions that direly need review by the higher courts. Many of these cases up for review are due to simple procedural errors or grave abuse of discretion.

For instance, last July the Court of Appeals struck down a decision made by Quezon City Regional Trial Court Judge Alexander Balut for grave abuse of discretion. The CA ruled it was wrong for Judge Balut to order the inclusion of properties that were never part of the deceased’s estate.

This case involves heirs to the Marcelo estate. Properties not part of the contested estate were included simply on the say-so of one of the parties to the case, prompting the opposing parties to elevate the matter to the CA.

It was discovered that Judge Balut was the subject of an administrative case by the SC for accumulating a huge backlog of cases as well as for unauthorized withdrawals from the Judicial Development Fund during his tenure as Nueva Vizcaya metropolitan court judge. In 2007, the SC meted administrative fines and directed the court administrator to file criminal charges against Judge Balut.

In this case, the SC’s own wheel seems to grind exceedingly slow.

Perhaps, now that it has a complete bench, the SC might take the initiative in clearing out its own backyard. Surely, there could be no excuse for judges already ordered dismissed still issuing controversial decisions.