In other words, is it possible that the JBC failed to “insulate the nomination process from undue influence of any kind,” or failed to keep itself “unfettered by the shackles of friendship, relationship, or other considerations”? All these from the JBC’s vision statements. More graphically, did a lot of brown-nosing take place?
I bring these up again (the first time I wrote about the JBC was eight months ago) because if, say, Corona is convicted by the impeachment court, what assurance do the Filipino people have that the JBC will do its job properly this time? None. Why?
Theoretically, the 1987 Constitution made sure that the JBC would be dominated by non-partisan appointees, because its composition would have three ex-officio members (Supreme Court chief justice as chair, the justice secretary and one member from Congress), and four “regular” members, all having to pass through the Commission on Appointments, theoretically representing the top of the legal profession: one from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, one from the legal academe, one from the legal private sector, and one a retired Supreme Court justice.
That’s the theory. What we have now is two members from Congress rather than one, who each have one full vote, rather than the one-half each that they started out with. Which means that the “regular members” are no longer in the majority. More politics.
x x x"
