The keen interest of the Filipino public to insure that truly qualified, reputable and independent-minded lawyers and jurists are appointed to the Philippine Supreme Court in 2009 by the much-distrusted and traditional-politician Philippine President Gloria Arroyo is shown by a recent editorial of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, dated December 11, 2008, urging the Philippine Bar to be very vigilant and assertive in the matter. I agree with the said editorial. May I reproduce the same in full below:
Editorial
Lawyers versus judges
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:01:00 12/11/2008
It is incumbent on the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to recommend the best possible nominees for Supreme Court justice—even if the appointing president were not confronting a legitimacy crisis, and even if seven justices were not retiring from the Court in a single year.
But, to use a common phrase with legal roots, nothing concentrates the mind like a hanging. The prospect of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointing seven more justices before the deadline for the filing of certificates of candidacy for the presidency in December 2009 has galvanized both members of the legal profession and leaders of civil society.
NGOs have started a close watch on Supreme Court appointments and the public spotlight has been thrown on likely nominees. Even the chair of the JBC, Chief Justice Reynato Puno, had to issue a strategic disclaimer, through his spokesman, that ultimately sought to reassure the public about the nature of the relationship between the JBC as recommending body and the President as appointing power.
On Monday came the clearest sign of strong resolve. The JBC disqualified three candidates for consideration in the search for a replacement for Justice Ruben Reyes, who will retire in January. It was of no small moment that the highest-profile candidate taken out of the running was Solicitor-General Agnes Devanadera, a legal tactician and former politician closely identified with President Arroyo. (Another candidate with strong backing who was also disqualified, also because of pending lawsuits, was former internal revenue commissioner Jose Mario Buñag. The third candidate disqualified was lawyer Rodolfo Robles; he was on the wrong side of the age requirement.)
The well-publicized disqualification must have piqued Malacañang’s curiosity; in its short history, the JBC has not exactly been known for disqualifying prospective nominees even before a vacancy occurs.
We trust that Malacañang accepts the JBC’s decision to remove the three lawyers from consideration with grace and in good faith. Even the JBC’s decision (by a vote of 6 to 2) to opt for open voting, should not be received in the presidential palace as an affront to the Executive or even a provocation. If the eight members of the JBC have nothing to hide, why should Malacañang feel offended?
(The truth, of course, is that in the public eye, the Arroyo administration has come to be associated with hidden or dark-of-night maneuvers: the proclamation of a president, the dismissal of an impeachment complaint, the vote to convene Congress as a constituent assembly without the participation of the Senate. It is in this context that the JBC’s previous lack of transparency in voting was perceived to be playing to the administration’s advantage.)
But it is not enough for the JBC to take the greatest care in choosing its recommendations for Supreme Court justice, or for civil society groups and media organizations to closely monitor the nomination, recommendation and appointment process. The entire profession of lawyers—like journalists, their lowly cousins, a class of professionals expressly privileged in the Constitution—must take part in the selection process, too.
We define the formula for their participation in rather raw terms: lawyers versus judges. But by that we only mean that the best sources of information about prospective justices are their fellow lawyers. It is, after all, professional reputation that answers the most stringent criteria of integrity of character, probity of mind and independence of spirit. We propose, therefore, that it become a duty on the part of a nominee’s peers to advise the JBC of any disqualifying information they may have about the nominee.
Will this open the floodgates to high and low intrigue, to back-stabbing disguised as necessary sacrifices on the altar of the public interest, to professional rivalries run wild? No, because even if the disqualifying information is brought before the JBC in a confidential manner, we would still expect the JBC to distinguish accusation from fact, to determine the trivial from the significant—to make a judgment, in other words.
Lawyers have as great a stake, perhaps even greater than most, in the composition of the Supreme Court.
See:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20081211-177275/Lawyers-versus-judges
