I. INTRODUCTION
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, entitled “Judicial Department”, governs the screening, selection and appointment of judges and justices, which is our topic in this forum, and other relevant matters concerning the Judiciary.
The principles that should guide the Judiciary in a modern democracy are independence, integrity, probity, competence, accountability, transparency, and good governance.
I dare say that in a time of serious political crisis, such as now, the most important principle that should guide the Judiciary is the principle of “institutional independence and autonomy”. An independent and autonomous Judiciary is the greatest stabilizer of a weak, unstable and unpredictable political community.
One may add the concept of “the legal empowerment” of the basic communities and the concept of “cost-effective access to quality justice” by the marginalized sectors, pursuant to the constitutional doctrine of “social justice” and the ecumenical doctrine of “the preferential option for the poor”, as additional working principles that should guide the Judiciary of a modern democracy.
The challenge that we face in this forum is to share our thoughts on how to improve the present system of screening, selecting and appointing judges and justices so that only the best, the brightest, the independent, the virtuous, the honorable, and the courageous are appointed to dispense and administer justice and to promote and defend of the rule of law in the country.
The vow of our new Chief Justice, Hon. Artemio Panganiban, as expressed in his recent pronouncements, is to lead a judiciary characterized by four (4) INs: Integrity, Independence, Industry, and Intelligence. He envisions a judiciary that is impervious to the plague of the four (4) “ships”: kinship, relationship, friendship, and fellowship. He has vowed to battle what he calls the four (4) ACID problems: access to justice by the poor, corruption, incompetence, and delay in the delivery of quality and cost-effective justice. He has a twin vision of a “reformed judiciary” and a “revitalized legal profession” which is directed towards two (2) loftier national goals: safeguarding liberty and nurturing prosperity.
His working philosophy and personal code of moral conduct, as manifested in his vows and goals as Chief Justice, speak excellently of his own parents, who had taught him, by example, the meaning of selflessness, service, virtue, and dignity, and of his own alma mater, the Far Eastern University, which, by the examples shown by his mentors in the Institute of Law, had developed his moral courage and power of critical and independent thinking to defend Truth, Freedom, and Justice.
II. JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
Let me cite the substance of relevant provisions of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution insofar as they may be relevant to the subject matter of this forum.
Sec. 7, Par. 3, Article VIII of the Constitution provides that “a Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence”.
To reduce the adverse and corrupting effects of patronage and partisan politics in the appointment of judges and justices, Sec. 8, Article VIII of the Constitution has created the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), principal function of the Council is to recommend appointees to the Judiciary. The Council is under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court.
It is composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.
The regular members of the Council are appointed by the President for a term of four years with the consent of the Commission on Appointments.
Sec. 9, Article VIII of the Constitution provides that the Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
Sec. 5 provides that the Supreme Court shall have the power to assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require; that such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned; and that the Supreme Court shall appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.
Sec. 6 provides that the Supreme Court shall have the administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. Sec. 12 provides that the Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
III. SERIOUS CONCERNS
Based on my conversations with leaders of the Bar, officials and employees of the Judiciary, leaders of law and justice-oriented non-governmental organizations and people’s organizations, faculty members of law schools, and representatives of the pillars of the Criminal Justice System of the southern district of Metro Manila, in my capacity as the Founder and the incumbent Chairman of the Las Pinas City Bar Association (LPBA), Inc., as the incumbent Vice President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) – Pasay Paranaque Las Pinas Muntinlupa (PPLM) Chapter, and as a member of the law faculty of this University, the common concerns of the stakeholders of the justice system refer to the debilitating, corrupting and demeaning influence of patronage and partisan politics, both local and national, and the influence of blood and social relationships, alma-mater and fraternity links, and religious connections in the screening, selection, and appointment of trial judges.
As to the screening, selection and appointment of justices of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, and Supreme Court, again, the most serious concern of the stakeholders of the justice system refers to the debilitating, corrupting and demeaning influence of partisan politics at the national level, a perception which is widely expounded in the mass media, which diminishes the image of independence, autonomy, incorruptibility, fairness and credibility of the justice system, and which creates internal demoralization within the Judiciary.
The Supreme Court itself, under the leadership of the past Chief Justice, Hon. Hilario Davide Jr., had recognized these concerns. It has, in fact, taken and continues to take major policy, institutional, infrastructural, administrative, and technological steps, under the 2000 judicial reform program called THE DAVIDE WATCH, aided by its international development partners and donors, to a noble vision:
“A judiciary that is independent, effective and efficient, and worthy of public trust and confidence; and a legal profession that provides quality, ethical, accessible and cost-effective legal service to our people and is willing and able to answer the call to public service”.
The Davide Watch and its component programs had the full support of the incumbent Chief Justice, Hon. Artemio Panganiban, who has committed to continue to implement the current Action Program For Judicial Reform (APJR) of the Supreme Court. The APJR deserves the full support of the Bar, the Bench, and the Filipino people, in general.
IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The provisions of the 1987 Constitution with respect to the screening, selection, and appointment of judges and justices must be amended, to give flesh and substance to the mission statement of The Davide Watch and The APJR:
To “insulate the selection process and appointments to the Judiciary from political patronage”; To “insure that only those of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence are appointed and remain in the Judiciary”; To “assert the fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary”; To “inform and educate the public about the judicial process”, And To “provide effective mechanisms for feedback from court personnel and the public”.
I respectfully propose the following amendments to Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution in relation to the selection and appointment of justices and judges:
1. That in case of vacancy in the position of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and other special collegial appellate courts created by law, the most senior associate justice thereof shall automatically and immediately assume the position of Chief Justice or Presiding Justice of such Court, as the case may be, without need of recommendation by the Judicial and Bar Council, or appointment by the President, or confirmation by Congress;
2. That in case of vacancy in the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Court of Tax Appeals, or a vacancy in the position of Presiding Judge of a first-level and second-level trial court and other special trial or appellate courts created by law, or in case of a lateral transfer of trial court judge to a sala of the same rank, the Supreme Court En Banc, not the President, shall fill the vacancy, within 90 days from the date of vacancy, from a list of three (3) nominees recommended by the Judicial and Bar Council, without need of confirmation by Congress;
3. That the Judicial and Bar Council shall be composed of a representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, a retired member of the Court of Appeals or Sandiganbayan, a retired member of the Supreme Court, a representative of the national association of law schools, a representative of the national association of law professors, a representative of the national association of the judges of first-level trial courts, a representative of the national association of the judges of second-level trial courts, a representative of national association of law and justice-oriented non-governmental organizations, and a representative of the national association of law students, who shall be appointed by the Supreme Court En Banc, without need of confirmation by Congress. The retired member of the Supreme Court shall be the Chairman of the Council. The members of the Council shall have a term of thee (3) years without re-appointment.
The usual and routine procedures of the Council and the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) should be maintained, e.g., medical examination, psychological tests, drug tests, public interviews, publication of the names of nominees, notices of the list of nominees to the concerned IBP Chapter, the local voluntary Bar association, and the national law and justice-oriented NGOs, mandatory pre-judicature course, written examination after the pre-judicature course, immersion period, orientation courses, background and lifestyle investigation, and others.
The Supreme Court should create a special investigative unit within its organizational structure that is the equivalent of an Internal Affairs Service empowered to conduct confidential triennial integrity and lifestyle check and investigation of all incumbent justices, judges and judicial personnel, in addition to the annual filing of statements of assets and liabilities.
V. CONCLUSION
In the ultimate sense, the integrity, probity, independence and competence of judicial officials and employees would depend on how zealous and vigilant the Filipinos are, as a united and mature national community, in promoting the rule of law, enhancing the administration of justice, and defending the Constitution from the greed, hate, and delusion of some of its misguided leaders and sectors.
Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.
