The chief justice the nation needs

THE Constitution, interestingly, does not impose qualification standards specific to the position of chief justice. As our Charter is now worded, any person who qualifies as a “member” of the Supreme Court can be appointed chief justice. Thus, even an outsider who so qualifies can be appointed chief justice.

The appointee must be a Filipino citizen at least 40 years of age; a member of the Philippine Bar who has been a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines for 15 years or more; and of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.

All these qualifications must be considered from the prism of the court’s constitutionally mandated task: To deliver justice through the exercise of judicial power.

Of these qualifications, age, citizenship, and Bar membership are easily determinable. Experience, to some extent, is measurable but its effects are not easily discernible nor predictable. Long years in public service or seniority may not at all be guaranteed predictors of fitness for the chief justice position.

The qualifications of integrity, probity, and independence, on the other hand, reflect on character and reputation. Their parameters are not easy to delineate; their presence or absence may also be difficult to conclusively determine if the gauges would solely be psychological testing, public objections, and Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) interviews.

Based on common experience, the rule that “action speaks louder than words” should find application; real character comes to light only through the past handling of gut-wrenching issues, not from representations during the JBC application process. Thus, both the JBC and the President should keep their eyes and ears open to all kinds of information made available to them and should forthwith actively investigate. Even knowing smiles from potential informants who refuse to talk may be significant.

Experience is a requirement that the JBC should appreciate with care as the 15-year temporal standard mentioned in the Constitution may not suffice. As a past member of the court, I had a nineyear ringside view that allowed me to see where and how experience matters in decision-making, the main task of the courts and of every magistrate.

One example I can cite as model is the performance of the first chief justice I served with, CJ Reynato Puno. The chief justice, incidentally, does not only preside over the court’s decision-making; he also leads the court in its administrative tasks. CJ Puno figured prominently in both.

He was in the thick of decisionmaking – either by way of his written ponencias, his opinions, or in the internal debates – in the most prominent cases the court handled during his time as chief justice. He waded into the cases that mattered to the nation, oftentimes in the majority but sometimes in dissent. His collected decisions best attest to his accomplishments.

Another performance indicator is his progressive approach to rule making while he was chief justice. The rules on the writs of amparo, habeas data, and kalikasan – the proactive procedures for the protection of our constitutional rights – were all formulated and promulgated during his time. The nation is lucky that he is now applying his talents and experience-based wisdom to constitutional reform.

To use proven performance as a measure, those of us who witnessed both the administrations of CJ Puno and of Maria Lourdes Sereno will not hesitate to say that a wide disparity exists between their leaderships in discharging their functions, particularly in decision-making and in running the court.

The reason is quite plain: CJ Puno could draw on a deeper wealth of experience, not necessarily confined to legal and judicial, and could translate and apply these past lessons to the cases and situations that confronted him. Sereno, lacking in this kind of experience, simply could not perform as well.

In terms of administration, CJ Puno generally administered the Court’s affairs smoothly and with an even hand; interpersonal issues hardly existed within the court as the flow of papers and cases, the running of committees, the grant of travel and benefits to justices and staff were transparent, forthright and fair. Court resources were frugally used.

Those who followed the recent House of Representatives impeachment proceedings on Sereno can readily grasp why the description that applies to CJ Puno cannot apply to her. The leadership needed at the court cannot rely solely on patronage-based mutual benefit; it must proceed from the justices’ acceptance and recognition of their chief justice as a leader whose personal qualities render him or her deserving of the position.

The qualifications of integrity and probity both essentially relate to honesty and fairness. They involve reputation and traits that are not easy to discern unless a close examination of an applicant’s record is undertaken. There may be occasions though when these traits shine brightly or are dimmed by questionable acts.

The legal community in the Philippines is a very small one. It is a community, too, that hardly has secrets, particularly with respect to the strengths and weaknesses of magistrates and judicial officials. One very badly kept secret relates to graft and corruption in the judiciary or among applicants for judicial positions – in the lingo of the trade, who among them “can be accessed.” These “trade secrets,” down to their gory details, are often the subject of common talk among lawyers. It may be time to talk of patriotism to the lawyers and the Integrated Bar.

Short of acts of outright corruption are the acts, whether private or public, showing a lack of the delicadeza that every magistrate should possess, or that point to a general unsavory reputation. Our appointing authority should not forget that our new chief justice, like Caesar’s wife, cannot carry this kind of taint in his or her reputation; he or she must be above suspicion as even whispered talks of a taint may be enough to harm the court and the cause of justice.

Last but not the least, the next chief justice’s term shall be unique: he or she comes to office when society is changing and new realities are emerging; when world population is exploding, sometimes beyond the capacity of some nations to sustain; when world climate is actively turning, with the world struggling to keep in pace; when science is actively marching and opening up new frontiers; when religion is losing its traditional hold in regulating mankind’s behavior; and when man, while looking outside of himself, also examines his inner self, and feels free to tinker with his basic nature

These emerging realities would inevitably give rise to novel issues that would test the court’s wisdom and capability as a neutral third party passively regulating national developments through its rulings.

Terrorism and the drug problem, for example, are now pervasively happening all over the world. For Filipinos, terrorism has become very real through their Marawi experience which may not at all be the last. The drug problem, too, may mutate rather than yield to the simple police action the authorities are now applying. Unfortunately, both are affected by leapfrogging progress in travel, communications, and means of commission that the terrorists and the drug syndicates may already possess or are getting.

Immediately at risk in all these are the rights of the individual that have been given primacy in today’s world by prevailing Western thought. Faced with active threat to the well-being of the state, will the new chief justice lead the court in considering the nation’s collective interests as overriding, or will he or she lead in giving primacy to the rights of individuals as western thought teaches?

What essential leanings and core beliefs will the new chief justice fall back on?

The emerging deep issues will also require a court leadership whose panoramic view can interrelate emerging issues with ground realities; who has the wisdom to evaluate the courses open to the nation; and who likewise has the capability to lead the court in choosing the nation’s wisest way and direction.

To return to where this article started, underlying all these is the dispensation of justice that is the court’s reason for being. Can our next chief justice lead in fairly dispensing justice, while guiding the Court as an independent institution with its own unique task under the separation of powers scheme of our Constitution?

Let us wait, watch, hope and pray that the appointing authority shall discard petty partisan politics this time and choose the best for our nation.