Many intelligent Filipinos agree with the recent editorial of the leading Philippine daily, Philippine Daily Inquirer, dated September 18, 2008, on the controversies and the poor institutional image that continue to haunt the Court of Appeals (CA), and the entire Philippine Judiciary, for that matter.
The subject of the editorial was the Court of Appeals “Covenant”, which was also the subject of my earlier item in this blog.
The CA admits its current reality, i.e., that its reputation as an institution has been badly tarnished by the Meralco decision and the accompanying unethical behaviors of the Justices of the two competing divisions and justice that handled it.
The introductory speech that explained the Covenant was phrased in emotional terms: “We have been subjected to sweeping generalizations, have been called names, and have been despised and insulted. Yes, the tide of the adverse public opinion has left us battered and bruised. And we are silently hurting, our hearts cannot help but grieve.”
The covenant, essentially a new declaration of intent for the CA, called for a series of reforms, including the setting up of a one-stop shop to manage its docket of cases; revisions in its internal rules; and the appointment of an ombudsman for the court.
The Chief Justice, who witnessed the event, was equally emotional: “Let me just emphasize that the road to moral recovery is a long and tortuous road. You have taken the first step, but there are other steps to be taken—steps that are more arduous, steps that are more difficult, steps that are more painful.”
The editorial stated that “unfortunately for the administration of justice, the most important steps, the most painful reforms, were not mentioned in the CA’s covenant”.
It warned and challenged the CA: “To the grieving hearts in the CA, we can only recommend the balm of a clean conscience. But the reality is that the institution’s reputation remains badly tarnished. Indeed, the allegations raised by Justice Jose Sabio, the emergence of a businessman without portfolio like Francis de Borja and the findings of the special commission the high court set up to investigate the case only confirmed public perception of corruption in the highest reaches of the judiciary”.
In fact, the editorial proposed an extension of the ethics-related investigations to cover the whole of the CA: “To borrow the imagery used by Philippine Daily Inquirer columnist Solita Monsod, the CA cart carries both good and bad apples. (Its sheer size, while helping with the caseload, may actually work against its credibility. There may be too many apples in the cart to begin with.) To give the cart a thorough cleaning, all the apples must be unloaded, even if only temporarily. That may be the only way to tell which remain ripe and which have turned rotten. In other words, what the Supreme Court needs to do is extend its investigation to the rest of the CA. The probe may last for several months, and it may lead to some very public bloodletting, but it will be a surer path to reform. And it will have the not inconsiderable virtue of enjoying solid public support”.
Just like the public, it asked, in hopelessness: “What good will new internal rules and a more efficient system for raffling off cases achieve, if the CA continues to be haunted by the very familiar ghost of decisions for sale? In their unguarded moments, many lawyers speak of a standard rate card, as it were, for CA decisions. A temporary restraining order, for instance, is said to have a going rate of P300,000”.
I agree when it stated that “if this is the problem, not even the setting up of an ombudsman’s office can offer the right solution. Prevention, not medication, is the right cure”.
Although, just like all Filipinos, the editorial “sympathized with the gallant judges, the incorruptible ones who still populate the CA”, it argued that “it is not their personal reputation at stake, however, but the court’s collective dignity” and thus, “the long-term reform solution, therefore, must be both dramatic—and collective”.
What that is remains to be seen.
Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.