Watching the judiciary

I have written several columns focusing on the need for judicial reforms. A just and prosperous nation must be built on the rule of law which requires weeding out corruption in all branches of government, including the judiciary.

One of the main reasons democracy remains on trial in this country is because the average Filipino does not believe that there is equal justice for all in our courts. Although I am not a lawyer, as a citizen I have written about court decisions that I have disagreed with.

I have also criticized the lack of transparency in the office of Midas Marquez, the Court Administrator who is supposed to be responsible for judicial discipline. I have heard too many stories from lawyers and former judges about corruption in the judiciary that I was beginning to give up on the vision of a fair and just society.

When I read about the decision of the Supreme Court to dismiss Sandiganbayan Justice Gregory Ong for Gross Misconduct and Dishonesty for his acquittal of Napoles in the purchase of inferior Kevlar helmets, I saw a glimmer of hope. That is the reason I wrote a column entitled “Justice in the Judiciary” last Sunday.

In my column, I highlighted certain paragraphs in the separate, concurring decisions of Justices Marvic Leonen and Arturo Brion. The decision, if I am correct, passed only by a simple majority vote and I felt that the eight Justices deserved recognition for their courage and integrity in this specific case.

I was pleasantly surprised when I received an email from Supreme Court Justice Arturo Brion that Sunday. Here is a copy of that letter:

“Hi Mr. Cruz. Art Brion here. You quoted from my Ong Opinion in today’s STAR. Thanks for highlighting the point I raised. Yesterday, I spoke before the Greater Manila IBP and I touched again on the subject. I am taking the liberty of sending you a copy of my speech.

Yes, there is corruption even in the SC. But we need witnesses to flush out the rascals in our midst. Hence in my speech, I pointed out that we need the relaxation of the HEARSAY RULE and the promulgation of a WHISTLEBLOWERS’ RULE IN THE JUDICIARY.

If you need info on judicial corruption, Maritess Vitug is a good resource person. Again my thanks.”

In his Ong decision, Justice Brion had proposed “to allow the investigating judges and justices sufficient discretion to admit hearsay evidence, subject to guidelines in determining its probative values.” For the layman, probative means “furnishing evidence.” I have been told by lawyers that the proposal to use hearsay evidence in a Court is a radical proposal. But here is how Brion justified his proposal in the Ong decision he penned:

“Bribery, like rape is a transgression that is almost never committed in public view. It thrives and prospers in the dark, in secrecy. But this illegality is not totally unknown to the Members of this Court; we all know that bribery is happening in our midst. The media hints at it; law practitioners talk about it and do not even do so in whispers; clients accept it as a fact of litigation and readily accept their counsels’ claim for extra expenses — ‘ para kay justice, para kay judge o para kay fiscal’  — a grave injustice to many in the judiciary and the prosecution service who have strictly trodden the high road of morality in the public service.”

There is not enough space to reprint the entire speech of Justice Brion which he gave last October 25, 2014 at the Greater Manila IBP Convention. I can only urge all lawyers and judges to read the entire speech. He proposed simplifying the code of fairness to two major values. He said:

“Our need is to be guided by simple fairness that can stand as easy summation of all the rules we recite as law students, and to apply these simple rules to our daily actions as legal professionals. I propose to do this by using the rule of FAIRNESS as standard. I thought too that we should take advantage of what our professional forebear appear to have had in the good measure in the good old days – the sense of HIYA — that served, better than any punitive measure, in leading the lawyers who came before us, to ethical and moral lives.”

Further on in his speech, he says: “I can only remind you of our ultimate goal – to earn the trust, through our actions, of the society that has been good to us and of the public we are sworn to serve.”

This thinking parallels that of Justice Leonen who wrote in his own Ong decision: “The Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach but that is perceived to be so in the view of the reasonable observer. A judge should ensure that his conduct, even out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public in the impartiality of the judiciary.”

Justice Brion, in his speech also said: “ Watch us as we are policing even our own ranks.”

I received a letter from Jerry Quibilan who remarked: “...I had a good feeling that SC Chief Justice Sereno will be a major change agent in the Judiciary like some of the former Chief Justices that I happen to personally know.” I have personally believed that the Appointment of Dean Marvic Leonen to the Supreme Court was one of the best appointments made by PNoy. The bold and courageous proposals of Justice Leonen have increased my hope that the vision of institutionalizing the rule of law in the Philippines will finally be realized.

*  *  *

Email: [email protected]