Let justices pick CJ

In my last column, I discussed the significance of Chief Justice

(CJ) Lucas Bersamin doing a 30-minute interview on a live news show considering his stature as head of a co-equal branch in government. Justices are meant to be stoic and reserved public officials, shielded from public scrutiny and politicking, for the same reason Lady Justice is blindfolded. This is also why judges and justices are required to adhere to a higher code of ethics.

It is most prudent for justices to shy away from interviews, else they expose themselves to attack and challenging queries. If we recall the interview of de facto chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno on BBC HARDtalk (which in my opinion was the interview that kickstarted her downfall as it convinced the Filipino elite on her lack of fitness), a CJ can be hammered with tough political questions that incite and reveal biases leading to prejudice, presumptions and persecution.

Good thing in the Philippines, most of the media interviewers are mild-mannered, polite, and would usually give a heads up on the questions to be asked. A consequence of interview’s done no-holds-barred, they’d feel the wrath of politicians beginning with unanswered phone calls and text messages. In some places in the Philippines. media personalities are killed for political reasons. But don’t get me wrong — I think free speech is alive and well in the Philippines compared to others (i.e., our friends China and Russia), save for a few hardheaded people who border attention-getting. In local politics, people are free to insult their politicians, though it now appears, with social media, Filipinos have become more sensitive when it comes to politics.

Regardless, the CJ is meant to be insulated from publicity, the same reason court hearings are held privately and why it is prohibited to make sub judice comments on pending cases. Worst thing to happen is for the CJ to be subjected to trial by publicity, otherwise his decisions will always be tainted with politics. This is also the reason why the Supreme Court has a designated spokesman, in the form of Atty. Brian Hosaka, since he is expected to do all the thinking, which, in reality, isn’t much talking. If we can compare government offices and agencies under the Executive branch, including the Office of the President, they have their own spokesman in Atty. Salvador Panelo, while the two houses of Congress do not. The reason? Each senator and congressman is his/her own spokesman. Of course, legislators must make the most of free publicity in aid of reelection.

However, CJ Bersamin, in his interview, reiterated that justices are supposed to be biased, clarifying that all persons are actually biased with their own reasons. He first said this in a Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) hearing, where he initially drew some flak from the media, linking it to why he has consistently ruled in favor of the administration. I agree that each person with a brain has his own biases; it is what makes each opinion unique. But Justices must, at the very least, exude an unbiased and apolitical image, free of suspicion just like Caesar’s wife.

Biases are inescapable, especially in our justice system where judges and justices are appointed by one single appointing authority in the President, elected by the majority of the Filipinos. It is common knowledge that applicants for vacancies in the Judiciary go through political intramurals of obtaining endorsements from high-ranking government officials. We may have a JBC to screen the initial applicants, but the decision still belongs to the President who can appoint the applicant with the least number of votes from the JBC members.

Soon, we’ll have two vacancies in the SC (e.g., that of now-retired Jardeleza and Bersamin next week), with more vacancies to come. Given the penchant of President Duterte in appointing justices of the Court of Appeals to the SC, the applicants from the CA are now at luck. As mentioned by the interviewer, this administration will leave behind a “Duterte court,” which CJ Bersamin denied. Politics inevitable, yet again.

In some states in the US, judges and justices are elected by the constituents, making them part of the political exercise known as elections. I wonder if there are any statistics that would prove if electing judges is better than appointing judges, though I can surmise that elected judges are more accountable to the people who elected him, while appointed judges can focus better on easing his docket since he is not required to join the campaign trail at all. But since our elections are entirely the beacons of Philippine democracy, I’d rather we stick with our current setup.

Now to my last point — the next CJ. Frontrunners are said to be Justice Diosdado Peralta (who just expressed his desire and nearly clinched it last time), Justice Estelita Perlas Bernabe (said to be Senator Manny Pacquiao’s bet), and Justice Andy Reyes (who will retire early next year anyway). Food for thought: What if the President tells the SC justices to vote among themselves who will be the CJ? This is acceptable politically since nearly all of them are already allied with the President, much less by his end of term. It can be done this November, or at the next vacancy, assuming the next vacancy will happen by 30 June 2022. Historic, innovative and absolutely supportive of judicial independence. Wouldn’t that be something?

“Chief Justice is meant to be insulated from publicity, the same reason court hearings are held privately and why it is prohibited to make sub judice comments on pending cases.

“What if the President tells the SC justices to vote among themselves who will be the CJ? This is acceptable politically since nearly all of them are already allied with the President.