Selecting a chief justice

The selection of chief justice (CJ) of the Supreme Court has never gained so much controversy than in recent years – and it has unfortunately always involved the president of the Philippines, who has the power to appoint this top person who will preside over the country’s judicial system.

We remember the appointment of Renato Corona by former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo two days after the 2010 general election, a move that was questioned because of a constitutional prohibition inhibiting the president from making any appointments two months before the election up to the end of her term.

Then presidential candidate Benigno Aquino III had been very outspoken against the appointment, leading him to declare that he would not recognize any Supreme Court CJ that would be appointed by Arroyo.

The Supreme Court, with Corona inhibiting himself from voting, ruled that Arroyo was in a position to appoint the Supreme Court CJ because the 90-day appointment ban did not extend to the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, this did not stop Aquino, who was later elected as president, from being involved behind the scenes in the successful impeachment by Congress of Corona for failure to disclose his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN).

A critical CJ

Aquino eventually appointed Maria Lourdes Sereno as CJ, a position she would hold for six years well into the beginnings of President Duterte’s administration.

She, however, would have her share of publicly stated disagreements with Duterte on several incidents, including the declaration of martial law in Mindanao and the burial of Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

Sereno was also critical of the President’s war on drugs, citing the need for due process of those included in the “drug list” instead of summary executions. This led to Duterte publicly expressing his resolve to oust Sereno from the Supreme Court.

Sereno was eventually booted out from her post, not through impeachment as she had expressed as the only way, but by her colleagues at the Supreme Court deciding on a petition filed by the solicitor general for failure to properly declare her SALN.

With Sereno vacating her office, Duterte named Teresita de Castro as the succeeding CJ. De Castro is due to retire in less than two months, giving her the controversial record of having the shortest tenure as CJ.

Impeachment rules

Meanwhile, several opposition lawmakers have filed a petition to impeach seven Supreme Court justices, including the incumbent CJ, for “culpable violation of the Constitution” and “betrayal of public trust.” The seven justices all voted to remove Sereno from her post.

The opposition lawmakers are arguing that a CJ may only be removed through impeachment, as stated in the Constitution, as Sereno had earlier stated as being the only way for her to step down from her position.

The Lower House will have to go through the motions of processing the impeachment complaint, even if it is widely believed that there will not be enough votes to do so in the current Lower House, where a big majority continues to support Duterte.

For sure, the President will be choosing a new CJ soon, with de Castro up for mandatory retirement by Oct. 8 when she turns 70. To be expected, this next selection process will generate a new round of discussions.

Judiciary’s independence

In one of our tete-a-tete with a good friend, lawyer Boy de Borja, he expressed views that I felt were worth sharing with readers. I asked him to write this down, and what follows below are his views. Please read on.

“With all the interest and passion which the Sereno episode stimulated, both for and against, the need to amend and explicate the removal or ouster process (for whatever/however it may be called) of a chief justice from office has never become more apparent and exigent.

“Perhaps, however, the problem is not so much in the end, as it is in the beginning; not so much in the termination, as it is in the appointment. What needs to and must be amended, then, is really the provision on the appointing power.

“As it is now, senators can elect their president, congressmen can elect their speaker, and yet, the Supreme Court justices cannot elect their chief. Pardon the ignorance or naiveté, but I cannot see nor discern the rationale for this distinction except for the rather simplistic, if not vacuous, reason that what America has, we must likewise have.

“Anyway, if only for people, yours truly included, to know the justification for the distinction, should there be any, even just a discussion on the change in this appointing power may be worth it.

“With the Supreme Court justices selecting their chief, there can hardly be a repetition of the unfortunate Sereno episode, as certainly, they will not be so inclined as to select, as their chief, a junior – the most among them, much less. And should their choice turn out to be the wrong one, they will only have themselves to blame.

“More importantly, the independence of the Judiciary ceases to be illusory, and at least on paper, become doctrinal. And depending on the circumstances then prevailing, this may very well be more than enough.”

Balance for democracy

It makes sense to ensure that the Judiciary remains independent of the Executive and Congress, and a selection process among members of the Judiciary, in both the private and public sectors, will keep that precious balance that is needed for our democracy to flourish.

Here’s hoping that De Borja’s views will be taken to task.

Facebook and Twitter

We are actively using two social networking websites to reach out more often and even interact with and engage our readers, friends and colleagues in the various areas of interest that I tackle in my column. Please like us at www.facebook.com and follow us at www.twitter.com/ReyGamboa.

Should you wish to share any insights, write me at Link Edge, 25th Floor, 139 Corporate Center, Valero Street, Salcedo Village, 1227 Makati City. Or e-mail me at [email protected]. For a compilation of previous articles, visit www.BizlinksPhilippines.net.