The Supreme Court and the lower courts, at 117

THE Supreme Court and the lower courts trace their roots to Act No. 136 (“An Act Providing for the Organization of Courts in the Philippine Islands”) that the Second Philippine Commission under the Americans passed on June 11, 1901. The Act formally established the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands and created the Courts of First Instance and Justices of the Peace Courts throughout the land. Thus, yesterday, these courts have been with us for the past 117 years.

At this age, the Supreme Court has had its fair share of agonies and disquiet.

The court stood firmly as the nation’s court of last resort during the Japanese occupation, but lost its fifth chief justice, Jose Abad Santos, to Japanese executioners.

It undertook a very fine balancing act during the turbulent martial law years when the republic was under siege from Communists and many, even the non-communists, felt that President Marcos had become a dictator. The court issued many martial law-related decisions, some of them controversial (among them, Javellana v. Executive Secretary that ushered in the 1973 Constitution), that marked the court as a Marcos court.

It suffered the unprecedented overhaul of its membership during the administration of President Corazon Aquino who asked the sitting justices to submit their resignations and who replaced them with her appointees.

The court witnessed the first impeachment attempt against an SC justice when politicians sought, but failed, to impeach then Chief Justice Hilario Davide during the term of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. The first successful impeachment in court history, on the other hand, came under the administration of President Benigno Aquino III, when then Chief Justice Renato C. Corona was impeached in proceedings that were subsequently denounced by a participating senator for irregularities in the impeachment process involving the use of public funds.

The court experienced an unfinished impeachment attempt, this time against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno (appointed by then President Benigno Aquino III to replace the impeached Chief Justice Corona) whose impeachment did not push through because of the quo warranto petition the solicitor general filed with the court against her.

This development led the court and its members – aware of their constitutional duty to resolve actual disputes involving violations of due and enforceable rights – to undergo the agony of ruling in a case involving one of their own. They ruled 8 to 6 for the ouster of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

This month, the court can perhaps close the high-profile Sereno quo warranto case when it rules soon after the solicitor general files its comment to the ousted Sereno’s motion for reconsideration. Its ruling though will not serve as the total closure of Sereno’s brush with the court; it still has to resolve its show-cause directive against the ousted Sereno for the aspersions she allegedly cast against the court and its members as she fought impeachment charges and her ouster.

Many say that the outcome of Sereno’s motion for reconsideration is no longer in doubt, basing this conclusion on the many telltale signs they noted.

First among these signs is the action of the court and its members when they compelled then Chief Justice Sereno (who was at that time actually presiding) to take an indefinite leave of absence while her quo warranto case was pending before the court.

Newspaper accounts of the proceeding showed the kind of resolve the justices had in handling the case. When she initially balked at going on leave, one justice threatened to file a resolution calling for her resignation. A unanimous court (with one justice on leave) supported the move to compel her to go on indefinite leave.

The House of Representatives hearings also showed the same kind of resolve; eight sitting justices appeared and testified with the permission of the court before the House of Representatives. They gave testimonies that the House could use in bringing impeachment charges against then Chief Justice Sereno. These testimonies became one of the arguments of then Chief Justice Sereno in her defense against the quo warranto charge: she asked that five of the justices be disqualified on the ground of bias.

Not one of the five heeded the then Chief Justice’s demand, and instead explained in their respective opinions in the quo warranto ruling why they saw no reason to inhibit from participating in the case. Significantly, not one of the inhibitions sought involved a compulsory ground for inhibition under the Rules of Court.

In the past few days, Acting Chief Justice Antonio T. Carpio highlighted that despite Sereno’s ouster as chief justice, the court’s operations had been normal and unimpeded. All the remaining 14 justices have been regularly participating in the court’s adjudicative activities.

One of the reasons for the court’s normal operations, of course, is the near unanimity and support demonstrated by the court employees, the lower court judges and their staff in viewing the moves against their chief justice. Many lower court judges, and employees even attended the court’s Monday flag ceremony to join the court employees’ Red Mondays when they wore something red in their attire to show support for the move to oust the chief justice.

This employee action is surprising as both in the Davide and Corona impeachments, the court’s employees went all out to support their chief justices. The complete opposite transpired when chief justice Sereno, then a sitting Chief Justice, was on the dock; court employees showed themselves to be united in their stand against her even when her outside supporters rallied at Padre Faura. Court employees who might have been supporting the sitting chief justice, on the other hand, were never significantly visible.

Another signal from the court that surprised me was the delisting of the ousted Sereno and of her picture, while her motion for reconsideration is still pending, from the roll of justices in the Supreme Court website.

This delisting, to my mind, showed the prevailing mood within the court on what the outcome of the case would be. The court, of course, was within its rights in its action as its decision to oust Sereno was immediately executory, without prejudice to a motion for reconsideration she may file. This is the motion that the court shall resolve, hopefully this month.

What accounts for these developments is not hard to discern for those who bothered to read and analyze the Tijam ponencia and the individual justices’ opinions.

Whether for or against, these justices showed the underlying love they carry for the Supreme Court as an institution and their devotion to duty as magistrates. Love is a feeling that far surpasses all other emotions. Duty, on the other hand, is what they swore in their oath of office to undertake. Right or wrong in their views, the justices are commonly imbued with this feeling for the court and their devotion to duty as magistrates; it was precisely this love for the institution and their devotion to duty that impelled them to rule against one of their own.

It appears to me that, deep inside, the ponente and the concurring justices wanted to remove a cancerous growth that could kill their institution if they allow the malignancy to fester. Even the dissenters showed their love for the court as they were effectively telling those at the other side – huwag naman, baka sa huli, ang kawawa ay ang court nating mahal.

I am sure that this is the same underlying feeling that led many of the judiciary employees to cheer all 14 justices in their Red Monday demonstrations of love and loyalty to the Court and the Judiciary.

Despite the present temporary disquiet, the Supreme Court and the lower courts are alive and well on their 117th founding day. Congratulations and my continuing best wishes to the court and the judiciary!