The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) created by the great minds of the 1986 Constitutional Commission who prepared the 1987 Constitution is a farce...a big fraud, at that.
Read the commentary of Atty. Manuel Almario, infra.
I have given the JBC model a wide latitude of liberality and trust in my mind since the late 1980s, believing that it was a much better and objective institutional option compared to the partisan Commission on Appointments of Congress.
I now admit I was wrong.
I now realize that the JBC is nothing but a glorified rubber stamp of the sitting President and her cronies and partisans whose sole ambition in life is to control governmental power and perpetuate themselves in their well-funded pork barrel-sweetened power structures.
The JBC has unwittingly abetted the abuses of the wielders of power who have prostituted the judiciary to the great detriment of the people.
It should thus be abolished the next time a constitutional convention (not a constituent assembly) is convened to revise the Constitution.
Let us go back to the traditional political-law system whereby duly elected representatives of the people, acting through Congress and its Commission on Appointments, are empowered to scrutinize all nominees to the judiciary.
Let us restore the faith of the people in the courts.
How the Supreme Court lost its independence
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 06:18:00 05/04/2010
The way we now choose the justices of the Supreme Court explains why it has lost its independence and its role as the last bulwark of civil liberties and justice.
In the United States, which originated the system of checks and balances between the three branches of government, the president nominates the justices of the Supreme Court. But his nomination is subject to the approval of the Senate by majority vote.
Partly copying this system, our 1935 Constitution provided that the president shall nominate the members of the Supreme Court and the judges of lower courts. The nomination is subject to the approval of the Commission on Appointments, composed of 12 members each from the House of Representatives and the Senate. The records of the nominees to the Supreme Court were closely and openly scrutinized in public right in the halls of Congress; some of the sessions were even televised. There was full transparency.
In both cases, check and balance was maintained.
In the Marcos Constitution of 1973, the president could appoint the justices of the Supreme Court without the approval of Congress. This was consistent with the dictatorial framework of the regime.
Under the present Constitution, the president appoints a member or the chief justice of the Supreme Court from a list of at least three nominees submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). There is no need for approval by Congress, a co-equal branch of government.
All seven members of the JBC, except Congress’ representatives, are appointed by the president, albeit with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Unlike Congress, which is independent of the Executive, all the members of the JBC, except two (the Senate and House representatives), are therefore beholden to the Executive for their positions. JBC’s vetting sessions are not usually attended by the general public.
The JBC members are the chief justice as presiding officer, the secretary of justice, a representative of Congress (in practice, one from each chamber), a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired member of the Supreme Court and a representative of the private sector. It should be noted that they could all be lawyers engaged in the practice of law and could have a vested interest in the members of the judiciary. Unlike Congress, they don't have any independent political base.
The practice of submitting a list of nominees to the appointing power is a farce because it would be quite easy for the president to insert a favorite in the list and make the premeditated choice. Hence the present system of selecting members of the judiciary is a colossal fraud. It actually is no different from the Marcos style of appointing justices judges without the approval of Congress, thus converting the judiciary into a mere puppet institution.
—MANUEL F. ALMARIO,
spokesman, Movement for Truth in History,
mfalmario@yahoo.com
see:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/letterstotheeditor/view/20100504-267958/How-the-Supreme-Court-lost-its-independence