Why, oh why, is the JBC scrapping the public interviews of CJ nominees?

Asad development in choosing the nation’s next chief justice (CJ) is the JBC’s decision to do away with the public interview of the current nominees. By the terms of the Constitution, the JBC has the full discretion to choose the nominees from among whom the President shall appoint a new CJ.

This discretion, by jurisprudence and practice, encompasses the right to determine the process of choosing these nominees. Until recently changed, this process included the public interview of the nominees; the chance for the public to suggest questions to be posed; as well as the opportunity to view and compare the public persona, positions, insights, competence, and past records of the nominees.

The JBC’s recent turnaround cannot but be a retrogressive move in light particularly of the fate that befell two of our CJs in the recent past. Interestingly, the cause for the ouster of the 2nd CJ could partly be laid at the JBC’s door: it omitted to fully undertake its duty of examining this CJ’s submitted records.

Today, due to the recent JBC fiat, no public interviews shall be held and no intensive public scrutiny will take place in the manner that happened in the appointment of CJ Teresita de Castro and other CJs and justices before her, or as in the appointment to the US Supreme Court of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Nominees can no longer be publicly examined on their essential beliefs, insights, and the hidden baggage they would carry with them to the CJ post upon appointment. The President, in fact, would have no record of public interviews to fall back on in choosing from among the listed nominees.

Is this good or bad for the nation? I pose this question to the sovereign people who will benefit or suffer from the appointment to be made, and who chose the JBC over the Commission on Appointments three decades ago.

Will no one from our officialdom – the President and members of Congress, among others, or from the public – ever raise a protest, or even whimper, about this recent JBC development?

The implications of silence in the face of the JBC’s recent move are frightening. The most obvious of these is that our officials and the public perhaps simply do not care.

If this is so, why do we have to waste time, efforts, and money in examining and amending our Constitution if we do not care about our public affairs anyway?

Why don’t we simply let government do what it wants and let the media and subsequent surveys fill up any ensuing gaps? In this era of false news and political surveys, they can work wonders. Or are we simply paying lip service to the amendatory process merely to cloak some penumbral activity with the fig leaf of legality? For what purpose or purposes, pray tell us please.

If the scrapping carries the effect of unduly favoring the present crop of CJ nominees, a host of questions likewise immediately arises. Is the JBC action that brazen due to a sense of impunity known only to itself and its members?

The only supervisory body with constitutional power over the JBC is the Supreme Court. Does the JBC really believe that it can rely on the Supreme Court to shield it when questions about its actions begin to fly?

Supreme though it may be, the court is still subject to the Constitution, to the people’s sovereignty (albeit indirectly through the impeachment process), and to the individual justices’ conscience.

We should not forget that judicial power is exercised, not solely as an authority but as a duty the courts owe the people. Members of the court likewise may not tolerate manipulative acts as had happened in the appointment of Justice Francis Jardeleza, to the then sitting CJ’s regret.

The JBC, of course, relies on the Constitution for its own existence. After one CJ had been ousted partly due to JBC neglect, its recent scrapping of public interviews might lead the people to think twice in embracing a body as mindless of public responsibility as the JBC had been. The old Commission on Appointments (CA) system – manned by the people’s direct choices – could just be waiting in the wings for the next constitutional round.

The deeper question that arises is: Why is the JBC turning its back on public interviews for CJ nominees when interviews are on-going for Supreme Court nominees for associate justice vacancies? What is so special about the CJ nominees, four of whom are senior justices of the Court?

Is the examination of their ponencias enough basis for the JBC to judge them and for the people to accept them? Of course, the people cannot immediately act with telling effect, but the JBC should never underestimate the effects of the lack of popular acceptance. Those poised at precarious perches can topple over at the first ill wind that blows.

CJ Teresita de Castro, to be sure, did not shy away from the JBC interview when her turn came. Neither did the others before her. Is there a special reason now why all of a sudden, the whole Supreme Court allegedly issued a resolution expressing its sense that its senior justices should not be subjected to public interviews?

If indeed, as alleged in another daily, it was Associate Justice Marvic Leonen who authored the court resolution, the good justice – previously media-friendly – is suddenly silent and media – shy on the matter? What is happening behind the en banc closed doors?

As an outsider and as part of the general public, I can only ask these questions and wait for some sensible response. I do so with the hope that these questions shall not simply be overtaken by events before the JBC or the Supreme Court reacts.