"x x x.
Chief Justice Sereno, in her interview with the Judicial and Bar Council, described the Constitution as "our north star" and declared that it should be followed. The relevant questions, now that she is Chief Justice, are how exactly does the Constitution guide the Court and exactly how does the Constitution envision the Supreme Court as an instrument of reform, transformation and change?
The Constitution as north star
Article VIII of the Constitution defines the Judicial branch and judicial power. Two key sections in the Article VIII are directly relevant to the Court's role as an instrument of change.
Section 1, paragraph 2 defines "(j)udicial power" as including "the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government." Section 1 defines the: (1) adjudicative and dispute resolution power of the courts in its first clause ("settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable") and (2) its "checking" power in the second clause ("to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government"). Exercising the power under the first clause would result in a decision that settles controversies but exercising the power under the second clause results in a declaration of the limits, boundaries or parameters of power and authority of the other branches or instrumentalities of government.
Section 5 specifically enumerates the powers of the Supreme Court, among which would be the power to "(p)romulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged" where these rules should provide for a "simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases" and "uniform for all courts of the same grade." (Art. VIII, sec. 5[5])
Section 5(5) is an investment of broad powers to effect change in:
(a) the legal profession (note the reference to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which is under the Court's supervision, and "pleading, practice");
(b) the system of legal education and the practice of law (note the reference to "admission to the practice of law");
(c) the judiciary (note the reference to "procedure in all courts" and the qualification that the rules must be simplified, inexpensive and uniform); and,
(d) the role and the rule of law in relation to those who need it the most (note the reference to "protection and enforcement of constitutional rights" and "legal assistance to the underprivileged").
These powers under Article VIII, sections 1 and 5(5) must be read in relation to several guarantees provided in the Constitution that directly impact on the role of the courts, specifically:
(a) Article III, section 11 which declares as a fundamental right that "(f)ree access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty"; and
(b) Article III, section 16 which guarantees that "(a)ll persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies."
It is within these broad parameters that the Constitution has invested the Court, now led by Chief Justice Sereno, with the power to reform, transform and change.
The role of the Court and its Chief Justice
Our Supreme Court is patterned after the American Supreme Court, which has been described as the "weakest branch of government" with Alexander Hamilton characterizing it as having "no influence over either the sword or the purse, ...(with) neither force nor will, but merely judgment."2 More relevantly, our Supreme Court has been characterized as "not only the highest arbiter of legal questions but also the conscience of the government"3 where its "might is in its being right." 4
Without the power to call out armies or the authority to allocate funds, how exactly can the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice reform, transform and change society?
First, it may be through a clear understanding and decisive invocation of the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court speaks, first and ideally , only through its promulgated decisions. Each word in its decisions should be meaningful and should reflect the exercise of its role to settle disputes as well as declare or affirm rights and define constitutional power boundaries. A Chief Justice who understands the power and the weight of the Court's decisions can wield great power to effect change, simply through the collective written word expressed in the Court's opinion.
Second, it may be through an imaginative and progressive exercise of the Court's power under Article VIII, section 5(5) providing for the exclusive power to promulgate rules on pleading, practice and procedure and the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. A Chief Justice who understands the potential of this broad power vested in the Court and has the imagination to use this can bring about change, through the promulgation of rules and the formulation of specific remedies. Notably, the Court, under former Chief Justice Reynato Puno, invoked this power as the basis for the extraordinary writs ofAmparo and Habeas Data which the Puno Court issued.
Third, it may be through a visionary and progressive view of the role of lawyers, the legal profession and legal education. The Supreme Court determines who can be lawyers, when they can become lawyers and how they can remain lawyers. The views of the Court on how legal education can—and should—be brought into the twenty first century are crucial because it is the Court which determines the content of the licensing exam for lawyers; conversely, it is the content of the licensing exam which drives most of the law schools' curriculum and programs of study. Legal education reforms and changes in the bar examinations must go hand in hand with transformation of the legal profession. A Chief Justice who understands the role and impact of legal education on the legal profession may spell the difference between law schools churning out simply skilled legal technicians, dispute settlers and transaction brokers and producing the same skilled legal technicians who are able to assume a greater role as public intellectuals and thought leaders.
Fourth, it may be through a clear perspective on how access to legal institutions may be enhanced. The costs of legal access are prohibitive, with filing and docket fees often posing as the greatest hurdle towards meaningful realization of the guarantee in Article III, section 11, on non-denial of free access to courts and legal assistance to those who are impoverished. A Chief Justice who can appreciate the dichotomy between the costs of going to court and the access to meaningful justice can provide a clear perspective toward genuine reform in this area.
Fifth, it may be through a courageous and principled assertion of fundamental moral and ethical standards by which judges are to judge, lawyers are to conduct their business and law schools are to teach. A Chief Justice who is able to lead the Court and the legal profession by example is one who can transform by sheer witnessing.
Finally, it may be through an understanding of the fine balance that exists between "judicial restraint" and "judicial activism." The Supreme Court, while the final arbiter, need not issue a decision on all cases that come before it; such a perspective unduly hamstrings the Supreme Court, undermines the Court of Appeals and paralyzes the lower courts. Delay in justice is often decried as denial of justice; indeed, many times, it is not that justice is not served but that it takes too long to serve it. One way to reduce the delay in dispensing justice is to ensure that judgments become final and are carried out. As it stands, almost every decision of the Court of Appeals is elevated to the Supreme Court—clogging the Supreme Court dockets, diminishing the value of the Court of Appeals as an intermediate appellate court and providing an undue advantage to those with deep pockets and infinite patience. A Chief Justice who can see the balance that must be straddled between "judicial activism" and "judicial restraint" can provide substantive changes in the administration of justice by reducing delay, empowering the lower courts and ensuring that judgments are actually carried out.
x x x."
