Case study for judicial reform

I recently received an email which said “I am an avid reader of your column in Philippine STAR and I read again last Saturday (April 6, 2014) your write up about the judiciary.”

The person talked of what he called “irregular” practices in the judiciary. He cited the practice of filling vacant courts with temporary appointments and even those who have violated judicial rules. When I asked for an example, he sent me voluminous documents regarding a specific case. I asked him to send me a summary of the whole case. He did, and I thought this seemed to be a reflection of what is happening in the judiciary at the “ground level” and reflects the need for reforms in the judiciary in the same scale as what is being done in the executive and legislative branches, as manifested in the ongoing Napoles investigations.

Here is the summary sent to me.

*      *      *

Businessmen have requested Chief Justice Sereno to remove as Acting Presiding Judge in the Regional Trial Court of Manila , Branch 24, Judge Lyliha A. Aquino and bring her back to the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao, Cagayan, her official and permanent court.

The businessmen, Engineeer Cirilo Basalo Jr. and Colonel Virgilio Ramos (Ret.) explained in their letter of April 1, 2014 to Chief Justice Sereno that while Judge Aquino remains in her post in Manila, President Benigno Aquino III will be deprived of his exclusive power to appoint a permanent Presiding Judge in Branch 24 of the RTC-Manila.

They also accused Judge Aquino of “plain and simple gross misconduct and gross negligence in the performance of judicial duties amounting to gross ignorance of the law.”

They explained that Judge Aquino failed to implement an injunction order dated February 6, 2013 in relation to their case involving “intra-corporate controversy” docketed as Civil Case No. 09-122-149 in Branch 24 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila.

They said that Judge Aquino should have known better. The order of February 2013 was supposed to be “immediately executor” based on Section 4 of Rule 1 of the Interim Rules of Procedures Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies under Republic Act No. 8799.

Basalo and Ramos are stockholders of Golden Dragon International Terminals, Inc. which is involved in an intra-corporate controversy for the controlling interest in Golden Dragon, Inc. which is involved in the business of port and terminal operations, management, maintenance, development and other allied services.

Basalo filed an administrative complaint against Judge Aquino because of her alleged failure to enforce the “executor injunction.”

Basalo and Ramos also conducted background research on Judge Aquino. According to their research findings, Judge Aquino’s permanent station is not in the Manila RTC Branch 24 which is a Commercial Court. Her official and permanent station is in Branch 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao, Cagayan which is a Family Court.

At the time of her appointment as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 24 in Manila, Judge Aquino also had a pending administrative case in the Supreme Court docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-10-2244 filed by a group which calls itself as the Trial Lawyers of Cagayan. Judge Aquino was charged with alleged “nefarious activities and impeachable activities and malpractices as well as non-payment of her indebtedness to her staff member, enrichment, selling mangoes and jewelry to litigants and habitual absenteeism.”

According to records, The Supreme Court ruled she had violated rules on annulment of marriages and adoption. Her penalty was a fine of P10,000 and a “stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.”

The Supreme Court must examine or completely stop the practice of filling up permanent vacancies in lower courts with the appointment of Acting Presiding Judge as what happened in the case of Judge Aquino. This deprives President Aquino of his exclusive power to appoint judges to permanent positions.

In the case of Judge Aquino, she was appointed as Acting Presiding Judge pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 53-2012 dated April 17, 2012 with express indication that her appointment is “fulltime” but does not provide a fixed term, which makes her appointment indefinite. She assumed her appointment as per Certification of the same date issued by the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 24 of RTC-Manila.

In the same Administrative Order No. 53-2012, Judge Pablo Agustin of Branch 4 of RTC-Tuguegarao  was designated Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 4 of RTC-Tuguegarao. His designation as Acting Presiding Judge will continue “until the return of Judge Aquino.” Which means the appointment is also indefinite.

Administrative Circular No 53-2012 provides that the appointment of Judge Aquino is made pursuant to Section 5 (3) Article VIII of the Constitution which provides that temporary assignment of judges of lower courts to other stations shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned.

Almost 2 years now have lapsed since Judge Aquino was appointed as Acting presiding Judge of Branch 24 of Manila. Judge Aquino will almost certainly give her consent to her “acting” appointment because this is one of the important Commercial Courts of Manila.

As the Acting Presiding Judge of the said Commercial Court, she has the power to issue search warrants for violation of Intellectual Property Rights applicable and enforceable all over the Philippines. Multinational and Philippine companies apply in her commercial court for the issuance of search warrants against violators of their intellectual property rights.

The violations of intellectual property rights involve multi-million peso cases and should not be left to the adjudication by an Acting Presiding Judge who does not have security of tenure and may be more susceptible to outside pressure.

*      *      *

It is the judiciary that will ultimately determine whether the rule of law can be institutionalized in our country. It is the judiciary that is the final arbiter of the law. It is the judiciary that must be the role model for obedience to the letter and the spirit of the law. And it is the judiciary,, most of all,, which must not consider itself to be above the law.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]