A call for judicial reforms

The business sector is obviously very happy with the performance of the P-Noy government. A letter to the President by the 13 biggest business groups in the country said:

“Since 2010, the Philippines has seen a resurgence in confidence, both in economic terms and in terms of governance, led by your administration’s reforms towards a more transparent, fair and inclusive nation. The impressive economic growth rates, achievement of investment grade ratings, improving national competitiveness, and a palpable optimism and vigilance against corruption within the people are testaments to your leadership and the management of your Cabinet.”

This is not surprising considering that in the last three years, many businesses have had record profits, the stock market index has dramatically gone up, crony capitalism eliminated and investments — domestic and foreign — have been increasing every year.

The London Financial Times calls the Philippines the fastest growing economy in Asia and a rejuvenated manufacturing sector is one of the prime reasons.

The letter of the Philippine Business Groups includes proposed measures for the remainder of the President’s term. One proposal I strongly support is reforming the judicial system. The letter continues: “Furthermore, concerns surrounding the seemingly arbitrary issuances and interpretations and the slow disposition of cases may create a perception of distrust in our legal processes.”

One of the recommendations is to “provide an efficient mechanism to aggressively investigate judges suspected of corruption and pursue legal and administrative actions once offense is established.”

I am aware that the Judiciary is supposed to be a separate but equal branch of government together with the Executive and Legislative branches. But it is not clear who is the point person in the Judiciary for ensuring action against corruption.

For example, I am aware that BIR Commissioner Kim Henares has filed more than 160 tax evasion cases and is actively pursuing other tax evaders. I am sure that is the reason why there is a concerted “demolition” job to try and destroy her reputation. This is one proof that she is doing an effective job.

Leila de Lima has also vigorously prosecuted criminal cases including the oil smuggling case against Phoenix Petroleum. This effort was, however, blocked by a  TRO issued by three Court of Appeals Justices: Justices Romeo Barza, Francisco Acosta, and Angelita Gacutan.

I am not a lawyer but in my own analysis of the judicial system, it seems to me there is a mechanism in place for investigating judges and pursuing appropriate actions. In the Guidelines on the Functions of the Court Administrator, it states that among the “work attended to by the Office of the Court Administrator” is “Judicial discipline of lower court justices, judges and personnel.” Another provision states that “The Court thus acts through the Court Administrators in the exercise of its administrative functions.”

The Court Administrator is Jose Midas Marquez.  His profile says that the “Supreme Court Justices, in an unprecedented move, unanimously appointed him the youngest ever Court Administrator with the rank of Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals. “

But the most interesting sentence in the profile says, “He [Midas Marquez] now has supervision over all 2,000 justices of the 3rd level courts and judges and 27,000 court personnel across the country, many of them twice his age.”

This young man’s position sounds extremely powerful and apparently he controls the mechanism to impose “judicial discipline.” Perhaps, this is the person we can hold accountable for cleansing the Judiciary. Unless, of course, Court Administrator Marquez believes that the level of corruption in the Judiciary is minimal and not a national concern.

The last time I saw and heard the Hon. Midas Marquez on television, he was reliving the impeachment trial of ex-Supreme Court Chief Justice Corona.  I was hoping he would discuss their own version of an anti-corruption initiative in the Judiciary instead.

If the Judiciary cannot reform itself, then there is a clear need for the Executive and Legislative branches, hopefully with the cooperation of the Judicial branch, to follow the proposal of the Business Groups “to institute reforms that would address issues of competence and efficiency in the justice system.”

The Business Groups’ letter also talked about rationalizing incentive-giving laws to further spur investments in sectors that would generate jobs. This is a very laudable proposal. The business sector is not only the primary engine of economic growth but also the generator of sustainable employment.

The World Bank study concludes that two-thirds of the fall in poverty was due to economic growth and one third  from greater income equality. More equal countries cut poverty further and faster than unequal ones. Job generation is clearly the first major step to income equality.

Unfortunately, the letter did not contain any specific measures or recommendations for job generation. Business, even those planning to expand, will not necessarily create more jobs. One of the primary goals of business is to improve productivity which means lowering the cost of operations. This actually means looking for ways to employ less people and save on labor costs.

But if business takes a long term and macroenvironmental view, creating more jobs leads to higher demand which leads to higher revenues. Businessmen will normally agree with this holistic view and still base their decisions on their short term, profit maximizing goal. But the issue of creating more jobs in the private sector demands immediate attention by both business and the government.

A fair and prosperous Philippine society built on the rule of law requires weeding out systemic corruption in all branches of government, including the Judiciary. It also requires a society that will give everyone equal opportunity for finding a decent job and being able to live a life of human dignity.

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]