The JBC interviews – a reverse perspective

IWAS very happy when I heard that the Judicial and bar Council (JBC) would hold public interviews for applicants to the soon-to-be-vacant chief justice position. This is democracy in action, I thought, since the people, in a way, would participate in the appointment process.

The day-long JBC interviews, however, proved to be a great disappointment given the way the JBC discharged its high duty; it failed, in my view, to exert real effort to look into the applicants’ qualities and character vis-à-vis the position to be filled and the required constitutional qualifications.

I failed to hear searching questions fully looking into the applicants’ core beliefs, personalities, predilections and biases, trustworthiness, competence and reputation, among others, based on the usual judicial tool – evidence on record.

It looked as if it did not want to embarrass the applicants, and in a way, the Supreme Court. With the JBC, an entity under court supervision, interviewing members of the court, the interactions appeared incestuous to me.

The interview questions, in my view, were superficial. The applicants’ decisions were inquired into but nobody confronted the applicants about the underlying reasons, soundness, and jurisprudential value of these decisions.

To cite an example, the decision in the Good Conduct Time Allowance case was mentioned during the interview. But nobody asked about the petitioners’ procedural remedy, the underlying facts, the arguments, and the issues raised, to assess the writer’s competence based on the decision’s reasoning and conclusions.

Had the JBC inquired, it would have discovered that at the time the petitions were filed, no prisoner’s rights had actually been violated under the Implementing Rules complained of; the secretary of justice who had authored the rules was not even impleaded. Effectively, the petitioners were simply asking for the court’s opinion on the validity of the disputed rules.

Can this be a valid exercise of judicial power? I am sure the ponente had a reason, even a legally sound one, but the JBC should have asked him to explain how he could decide they way he did, when the court is not allowed to render advisory opinions or act in the absence of actual controversies.

To be sure, the ears of a sensitive and highly competent chief justice would have perked up in this kind of situation.

An aspect of this situation that puzzled me was an applicant’s own statement about the filtering of cases coming to the court as a way of controlling its case backlog.

Curiously, nobody in the JBC confronted the applicant about the possible incongruity of this statement with his failure to apply filtration in his GCTA case. This was the kind of question and evidence of qualification (or lack of it) that the interviews could have highlighted.

One applicant was the author of the PDAF case and she mentioned it pointedly as one of the cases that marked her judicial career. Yet, nobody ever asked probing questions on the ruling’s practical value and impact on the court’s own financial administration – a function where the chief justice plays a major part.

The quo warranto case against then Chief Justice Sereno and the applicants’ positions in this case were hardly remembered. How could the JBC gloss over this case when the interview was for the vacant chief justice position? Did the JBC treat the case lightly because it was complicit in the deficiencies that led to Sereno’s ouster?

Every applicant was pointedly asked about his/her judicial philosophy. Answers varied, apparently for lack of clear understanding of what judicial philosophy is.

One applicant answered that his philosophy is to follow the rule of law. A second applicant said that he would ensure fair, impartial, and speedy trial for the accused. Another assumed a moralistic tone, while still another would strictly apply the law when it is clear and would adopt a pragmatic approach when it is not.

In any case, nobody in the JBC really bothered to raise pointed questions on how an applicant’s judicial philosophy would impact on the applicants’ performance as chief justice.

I bring all these out, not to criticize the applicants who only responded to the questions asked, but to highlight a reverse perspective. For a really meaningful interview, the interviewers themselves must not only be knowledgeable and prepared for the interview but must also have purposive objectives relevant to the task.

Note that the interview was for the position of chief justice, the head of the judicial branch of government. Because of the nature of this position, the JBC cannot simply interview the applicants the way it would interview an associate justice applicant.

Although the votes of justices, including the chief justice, are equal in a collegial court, the latter is primus inter pares owing to his/her position and role in our overall governmental structure.

The JBC, therefore, should have done its utmost to determine if an applicant possesses the basic qualifications for the position of justice of the Supreme Court, and qualifies as well as the unelected leader of the third branch of government. The JBC, from this perspective, represents the people in “electing” a new chief justice.

Competence should not be a serious issue, particularly when the applicants are all Justices of the Supreme Court. Even so, the JBC’s prior preparation and questions on the applicants’ ponencias could have shown their differing levels of competence, given the uneven quality of court decisions.

Did the JBC undertake a prior survey of the individual applicants’ ponencias to determine their individual levels of legal competence? What interview questions should have been asked for purposes of this evaluation? Were these questions asked?

For a chief justice, a mandatory trait is the possession of a vision for the court and the judiciary in light of the government’s and the nation’s needs. Visions set directions for the institution and define the leadership the institution needs. Were the applicants’ visions for the judiciary ever explored at all?

Trustworthiness is another trait that chief justice cannot be without. The court and the judiciary would fail if the chief justice cannot be trusted by his/her own court and by the nation. I need not point out where and how trust is usually betrayed.

A very valuable trait a chief justice must have and that the JBC should test for is gravitas, the respect-earning serious mien every leader should have to effectively interrelate within and outside the court.

Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee himself said: “Respect must be earned. It cannot be litigated, mandated, or adjudged.” Did the JBC, given its mandate, ever aim to determine whose records and performance run closest to the possession of gravitas?

Or, will the JBC simply judge the applicants based on how glib they had been during the interviews?