A rare pushback from the Supreme Court

Lawyers’ groups including the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) welcomed the recent ‘en banc’ statement of the Supreme Court condemning the killings of lawyers, judges, and prosecutors, and outlining the concrete steps the judicial system is taking to protect its members.

A statement made ‘en banc’ (in the bench) signifies a declaration made by the entire membership of the high court rather than by one of its divisions.

This statement is unprecedented in the light of the inherent conservatism of the court, careful as it is not to be dragged into the political arena. Outside of a justiciable controversy, the Supreme Court resolved to speak in no uncertain terms of the grave danger posed to republican democracy by the culture of violence directed against members of the legal profession.

The FLAG has recently tallied 61 lawyers killed in just nearly five years of the Duterte administration, while a total of 28 killings of lawyers were recorded from 1972 to 2016, spanning six administrations from Ferdinand Marcos to Noynoy Aquino. This count did not include those lawyers and judges who had received threats, or those injured or nearly killed.

“To threaten our judges and our lawyers is no less than an assault on the judiciary. To assault the judiciary is to shake the very bedrock on which the rule of law stands. This cannot be allowed in a civilized society like ours. This cannot go undenounced on the court’s watch,” the Supreme Court said.

“The Supreme Court is mindful that nothing prevents it from standing by all court officers, judges and lawyers alike, as it now does in no uncertain terms. This principle is not in debate, but has remained fixed on administering justice amid a history of shifting social and political tides,” the statement read.

“Every threat to a lawyer or a judge that prevents them from exercising their functions has very serious repercussions on the idea that the rule of law must be accessible in an impartial and transparent manner to all parties,” it continued.

Some people think that lawyers are asking for special treatment when they call for protection of their ranks from violence. Some lawyers even accept the proposition that the law profession is a dangerous profession. That reminds me of a familiar quip I heard back in law school amid the rounds of stressful Socratic recitations and enormous stack of reading assignments: “Nganong ni-enter?!”

That wisecrack may be fitting in the context of Law school, and even now in the law practice when lawyers appear in court and log in countless hours of research, reading, and drafting legal pleadings. But to be threatened and harmed physically and then told to expect it as part of the risks of the profession – that’s not normal, to say the least. Lawyers were not trained to shoot bad people or engage in armed battles with the goal of achieving justice for their clients.

In the same statement, the Supreme Court said: “We are all too aware that everything the court stands for must bend its arc toward ensuring that all its officers can fairly and equitably dispense their duties within the legal system, unbridled by the constant fear that such exercise may exact the highest cost.”

“In this light, the court condemns in the strongest sense every instance where a lawyer is threatened or killed, and where a judge is threatened and unfairly labeled. We do not and will not tolerate such acts that only perverse justice, defeat the rule of law, undermine the most basic of constitutional principles, and speculate on the worth of human lives,” the court said.

Now, this is the part where overzealous, rightist, and strategically myopic elements of the administration and law enforcement agencies must heed: “We are aware that there are wayward elements who in their zeal to do what they think is necessary, would simply brush aside the limitations in our law as mere obstacles. This should never be countenanced. For it is only in the enjoyment of our inalienable and indivisible rights that our freedoms become meaningful,” the court said.

“The Supreme Court has always operated within institutional restraints, but it is far from resigned to spectate as clear breaches of constitutional rights are carried out beyond its halls. We remain conscious of our role to ensure that the rule of law is resilient and effective in a just, fair, and timely manner.”