Choosing our chief justice in these interesting times

“MAY you live in interesting times” is a curse, reputedly Chinese in origin, that refers to problematic times. From the lenses of my younger years in the 60s and the 70s, we now again appear to be entering one of these times in our history. This disturbing development, in my view, should be considered in choosing our new chief justice.

The societal divide, then and now, between the rich and the poor has not significantly changed, although the gulf now appears wider and deeper, worsened by unchecked population growth, particularly among the poor.

The ailing economy of the 70s likewise appears to be repeating itself, primarily and badly affecting those who can least afford a downturn. The situation may in fact be worse now as no end appears in sight.

In more understandable terms, the prices of rice, prime commodities and fuel are rising with no effective and discernible responses from government. By Christmas time, many citizens will have become angry, hungry, and unhappy voters.

Student unrest characterized the 60s and the 70s. Massive rallies and demonstrations are not yet with us now, but can easily be triggered in these days of easier communications.

Armed communists were heavily present in the past and are still with us, albeit in a very much lighter mode. In fact, we could now be seeing their last gasp, a situation that renders them more dangerous in the short term.

Great strides have been achieved in resolving our Muslim problems in the South, although a new problem appears to be emerging – Islamic terrorism. While the government has directly and openly confronted and defeated terrorism at Marawi, the problem – largely fueled by external funding – cannot yet be regarded as solved.

Our politics, then as now, remains contentious, acrimonious, and highly divisive. We now hear wild and disruptive political charges although the administration, to the relief of many, now responds with surprisingly direct actions against excesses.

Unlike in the 70s, the legitimate left now has greater visibility and has in fact largely carried the ball for the political opposition. Verbal virulence has not at all changed the overall political picture – an uphill climb for the political opposition who, hopefully, will not be tempted to take direct, but risky, catalytic action to reverse the trend.

A worrisome common feature then and now, is the illness of the president. President Marcos became ill in the 80s, and initially went to great lengths to conceal his illness. Indications that our present President is unwell are beginning to emerge: he himself eventually disclosed he may have 3rd -stage cancer.

The difference between then and now is a complicating factor; this time, the vice presidency is still disputed, thus raising the potential issue of succession. The court, unfortunately, has yet to resolve the case with finality.

These are the signs of the times as we now choose a new chief justice to replace Chief Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro.

To say that these signs can be disregarded as the Supreme Court, including the chief justice, is one step removed from political and other national problems, would be naïve and shortsighted.

The court and the judiciary are as much a part of this nation as its people and the other branches of government; court decisions affect national policies and directions and cannot but be taken into account as part of the national responses to national problems.

The court’s independence does not signify institutional isolation; the court, particularly its chief justice, must be instep with the rest of the nation. This, the President, as the ultimate appointing authority, and the JBC, as the recommending authority, should fully realize. In particular, their interpretation of the required “competence, integrity, probity, and independence” should reflect this realization.

Competence should not now merely be viewed in terms of knowledge of the Constitution, the laws, and the most current court rulings. The JBC, in particular, should pose probing questions to expose the applicants’ awareness of the sweep and depth of national problems, legal and non-legal, and the solutions available to the court and to the nation to address them.

Integrity should be both personal and associative. Integrity and probity, taken together, should translate to “character” or that indefinable mark of quality a person of integrity and probity carries. We now have ample lessons from recent US experience on how character could be a critical determinant of qualification.

The chief justice applicant does not need to be a popular figure in the court, acceptable to colleagues because he or she pleases, or tries to please, everyone. Nor does he or she need to be the center of attention in the court because of glib remarks or witty jokes.

There should be more to a chief justice than these. Like Chief Justice De Castro, he should be acceptable because he stands for, and leads the court, along moral and legal high grounds.

At the other extreme, he or she cannot also be a justice whose seriousness and deliberate air only mask the deviousness that his acts eventually demonstrate. This type of chief justice can be dangerous, both to the institution and to the nation, as the chief justice should steer the nation, under fair procedures, only to solutions the Constitution and the laws allow.

The coming chief justice should also be judged by the company he keeps. This standard is important as it shows the influences working on his character and affecting the direction of his decisions. Known and open association with influence peddlers should be enough to disqualify a chief justice applicant.

In line with these norms, I believe that outgoing Chief Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro herself should be the model to look up to in choosing her replacement. She possesses character: her integrity and reputation for probity remained unsullied in her 45 years of public service; she associated with the godly rather than the ungodly. Nor can her competence as a jurist and as a humanist be impugned. Lastly, she was fiercely independent in her views while being protective of the institution that she represented.