It is often the actions of the High Court that colors public perception of the Judiciary. We judge our justices on what the Constitution requires of them. Of proven competence and possessed of integrity, probity, and independence.
The Court speaks through its decisions. Hence, it’s when judgments are promulgated that our estimation of our magistrates either rises or falls.
Depending on your political inclination, the Marcos vs Robredo PET decision could be your flashpoint. The Sereno Quo Warranto; Estrada’s “constructive” resignation; the Davide impeachment decision calcifying the “notorious” first to file rule; the 1973 ratification cases; or any of the many flip flops. Arguably, decisions like these cement Courts’ reputations in the public eye, usually negatively.
Or, at any given time, it could be the independence displayed as an institution vis-a-vis the other branches. The Corona court against President PNoy; the Puno Court against President GMA; the Davide Court circling the wagons against the House of Representatives. Or subservience: the different Supreme Courts under Marcos Martial Law.
The affection or disaffection for the Judiciary reflects in the public pulse. SWS and Co. have long been taking our temperature. The Judiciary’s rating is always the lowest among the three branches. But its trajectory fluctuates. It was at its highest just after the Estrada impeachment, lowest during the Corona impeachment.
The usual explanation is because the Judiciary is the branch farthest removed from the public. Or it could also be because they’re not as trusted as their brother Executives and Legislators. Who can tell? Even in the survey ratings, those who approve of our Chief Justices are usually equal in number to those who are undecided.
But whatever it is, definitely, Thursday was a good day for justice. After a long, frustrating 10-year wait, bells were pealing as a solitary lower court Judge seized the narrative and handed the nation a Christmas present to remember. Cases do come along that defy categorization – whose degree of wantonness and depravity threaten all of us. Those that pressure the court system posing unique challenges; and/or with the suspects’ high profile ratcheting up the potential for putting judicial fairness at risk. The Maguindanao massacre is undeniably one such case.
Hostis humani generis. We’ve been reading excerpts from the decision in People of the Philippines vs. Datu Andal “Unsay” Ampatuan Jr. et. al., in particular the accounts of how the massacre was planned and carried out. Even though we’ve been exposed to the images of the same from the time discovered in 2009, nothing could prepare us for the retelling which revealed the sheer cold bloodedness of the operation. To the curious, it was a mesmerizing insight into the psyche of killers; or of what men might do if incubated in the same environment which allowed this evil to fester.
Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes redeems our faith in the Judiciary. To some, this is simply “another day at the office.” Indeed, even Judge Jocelyn may protest that she was just doing her job. Even so, this was a monster case to try based on the number of victims, suspects and the evidences alone. Of course the insult added to injury here is the equally numerous lawyers and their antics.
It was a test, as well, of her own resolve against the pressures we could just imagine she endured, both externally and internally. Just as defense counsels were approached to throw the case, she, too, would have been targetted for attempted this and that. We know now that she had to sacrifice a lot, including her shot at a place in the Court of Appeals. Surrendering that chance meant that the Trial would continue undisturbed as against the certain delay of a transfer to a new judge. She didn’t think twice.
Her decisions, in this case and in her personal life, alleviate the suffering not just of the victims’ families but of an entire nation diminished by the actions of these “enemies of mankind.” When I grow up, I want to be like Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes.
‘Til the fat lady sings. But, of course, it ain’t over yet. The Philippine criminal system affords extensive judicial review of the process that ends with a defendant’s conviction.
Whether by appeal or by automatic review (back when capital punishment was still the law, judgments of conviction were elevated straight to the Court of Appeals), the courts’ continued participation is critical to ensure the respectability of judgments.
Several of the accused were acquitted because of the sheer difficulty to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt. An equal number remains at large and await their own dates with destiny. Convictions may still be overturned if attended by errors of law or prosecutorial misconduct. This in itself is justice as reliance on a judgment that turns out to be erroneous or based on misconduct will not be publicly acceptable as fair.
There is no symmetric equivalent, however, for acquittals. Even if egregiously wrong, there will be no second chances for the People of the Philippines. Again, it’s a matter of basic fairness. A repeat trial would be an unjust burden on the accused; and the State is given an unwarranted second opportunity to convict.
Blessings. Our mother, Marichu Vera Perez Maceda is a year older on Monday. For every day of our lives that you are here with us, we are eternally grateful. Happy Birthday Mom!
To our faithful readers, we wish you all the best this Christmas. To our public officials, our prayers that the spirit of the season infuse you with the resolve to always do your best by the people.