The changing membership of the Supreme Court

PRESIDENT Rodrigo Duterte has appointed the 177th Justice of the Supreme Court, Associate Justice Andres Reyes Jr. Unlike President Aquino who appointed younger Supreme Court justices, some of them with very little judicial or law practice experience, President Duterte appears inclined to appoint older and tested ones.

Justice Noel Tijam came from the Court of Appeals while Justice Sam Martirez came from the Sandiganbayan. They replaced Justice Jose Perez who rose from the administrative ranks of the Judiciary; I immediately came from outside the Judiciary (as I was an incumbent Cabinet member when my appointment came), but before then I served with the Court of Appeals and had actively practiced law.

The Justice that the current 177th Justice replaced, Justice Bienvenido Reyes, came from the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. The next retiring Justice, Associate Justice Jose Mendoza, also started as an RTC Judge and was with the Court of Appeals from where he rose to the High Court. His replacement will again be a judicial insider based on the list submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council to the President.

These developments will surely cheer up the ranks of career magistrates. Having “grown up” in the judiciary, these judges and justices feel secure among the ranks of those who value the stability of precedents and of practices that have served the country well in the past. They feel, too, that careerism should be strengthened to foster a strong and independent Judiciary. Incidentally, these are the same sentiments aired at another agency of government that values careerism, the Department of Foreign Affairs, where the proportion of the career diplomats to those who come from the outside has always been a contentious issue.

The Judiciary, to be sure, needs the fresh ideas that newcomers to judicial ranks bring with them from their previous outside experiences. The infusion can enrich jurisprudence and improve the dispute resolution process. Innovative ideas though, cannot come at a rush; exuberance for experimentation must be tempered as they run counter to the ways of the Judiciary whose concept of service to the nation thrives on contemplation, stability and incremental growth.

President Duterte (himself a career prosecutor before he entered politics and an old hand at government service and its demands) apparently appreciates the traditional judicial way of thinking and the value of proven past experience. Newcomers now come in at the trial court levels, or at the most, at the intermediate appellate court levels; the Supreme Court is for those who have served before and have been tested for valued magisterial qualities.

Without doubt, among the ten (or twelve) that the President would appoint during his term, a few would come in fresh from outside the Judiciary. This is only right as the Court cannot also be a homogenous body of justices who act and react in the same way; a collegial court so constituted is rigid and can be weak in imaginative approaches and long-term effectiveness.

As in the Department of Foreign Affairs, a thirty-to-seventy percent (newcomer to career) proportion would be a healthy mix that would ensure stability while still being receptive to fresh perspectives and approaches. This is being proven now in the present Court where the arguments of the relative newcomers are enriching but are still relatively in the minority. In due time perhaps, those currently new to the Judiciary may come to dominate the Court, but their views would then be seasoned with established and accepted judicial values. Big Shoes to Fill

I have been reliably informed that for the third time since I retired, the retirement of a justice shall not be attended by any elaborate retirement ceremony; the retiring justice will just say goodbye to the Court during his last flag ceremony and host a lunch for all employees of the Court (instead of the usual formal dinner for the Justices and selected guests).

This is how Justice Jose Catral Mendoza will fade out, in the low-key way he has always served. But the vacancy that his retirement shall create will not be easy to fill if his accomplishments will be the standard. Behind his low public profile hides a lot of accomplishments that others would have unashamedly bannered.

With quiet leadership that focused on accomplishments, he has always risen to the top. He was the Executive Judge of the Laguna Regional Trial Court when he served in Laguna, and had occupied the same executive post in Quezon City. He is not the Chief Justice nor is he the most senior, but his counsel and views have always been sought by his colleagues. For, his is the quiet unwavering support that only the strong and those sure of the merits of their views, can give.

From the Court of Appeals, he was appointed to the Court in 2010 where he wrote the decision that invalidated President Aquino’s first Executive Order (Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission). This issuance, creating the Philippine Truth Commission, was declared unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause as it singled out – in “plain, patent and manifest” terms – the past Arroyo administration for discriminatory investigation. This was a bold decision although it did not fully deter the Aquino administration from proceeding against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in moves that showed the prescience of Justice Mendoza’s Biraogo ruling.

He also wrote in 2013 the closing chapter of the long-running case – In the Matter of the Brewing Controversies in the Elections of the IBP (A.M. No. 09-05-2-SC, April 11, 2013) – that finally settled the leadership dispute at the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and brought it to its present period of stability. This was a great service to the legal profession and a decision that all lawyers should congratulate him for.

Justice Mendoza, too, penned the Court’s ruling in the Reproductive Health Law case (Imbong v. Ochoa), which left the law intact but struck down several provisions that allowed abortion. It was not an easy case to handle because of the emotional positions that the public, including the Church, had taken.

J. Mendoza, to his credit and clearly adhering to the separation of church and state principle, had the contending sides both cheering and claiming victory after the decision’s issuance. Thus, the Court, through Justice Mendoza, defused the country’s long-ticking abortion bomb.

Soon, Justice Mendoza will move on. So will the Court… .... Welcome Justice Andy Reyes, our 177th Justice. We will be there behind you.