Most overlooked qualities among appointees

Happy Valentine's Day to AC, who rocks with me nightly in her own rocking chair (wink, wink), and to our daughters Ker and Bogak over there at home by themselves, and Ohn and her husband Ivar up there near the Arctic Circle. Know always that for as long as God allows this tired old heart to keep beating, like a Marine sergeant calling out cadence, it will keep the beat for all of you and not ask for anything more.

 * * *

A very common mistake frequently made by vetting, appointing, and approving authorities when filling up government positions, especially those with judicial or quasi-judicial functions, is to focus almost exclusively on intelligence, experience, and integrity. While these qualities do weigh heavily on the desired performance and quality of output of these appointees, they are by no means the only guarantees for on-the-job success.

Vetting, appointing, and approving authorities have to be on the lookout as well for such lightly-regarded but no less important qualities as prudence, discretion, and circumspection. This is most especially true when one holds a judicial or quasi-judicial function, as when one is a justice of, say, the Supreme Court, or say, a commissioner of the Commission on Elections.

Two very good examples of this fatal oversight in ensuring the unassailable qualities of a nominee or choice for a sensitive government function are those of a fairly recent retiree from the Supreme Court and a very recent retiree from the Comelec. Both retirees, while in office, exhibited the kind of character that can often be mistaken as that of an unbridled horse.

They utterly lack the prudence, discretion, and circumspection that are integral and inseparable to their former positions. They love to talk. They cannot keep their thoughts and feelings to themselves. Like a loose cannon, they are a danger not only to their own selves but, more importantly, to their countrymen who can suffer from the careless exercise of responsibilities reposed in them and the institution through which they carry out these responsibilities.

While still in office, the now-retired Supreme Court justice just could not stop himself from talking publicly about a very controversial foreign policy issue that threatened to have very serious diplomatic and military repercussions if it got out of hand. The justice very publicly compromised his position and independence on a matter that had the highest potential of reaching his court.

The now-retired official of the poll body, on the other hand, just could not stop from going public with some details on a case whose decision had yet to be announced, thereby seriously undermining the integrity of that decision. The official seemed to have very little regard for the consequences of an act that had the potential to make the country go up in flames.

It is clear their reckless actions are fired by the political choices they have made for themselves. Actually, there is nothing wrong in making political choices and adhering to these choices once made. That is a matter of personal right and must be respected. The problem arises when one's politics cannot be checked by the need to be prudent, discreet, and circumspect, and emerges to interfere with tact and better judgment.

So the next time positions are considered for filling, especially when involving judicial or quasi-judicial functions, prudence, discretion, and circumspection should be given just as important an attention as that given to intelligence and experience when vetting, appointing, and approving candidates or nominees for such positions. If you truly want to test for real depth of water, go where the water is still.