* * *
In the proper order of things, fiscal autonomy is but one safeguard to protect judicial independence. The importance of this order is buttressed by the fact that the seven-year-old “New” Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary sets out as its first canon the tenets of “independence,” holding and hailing the same as a “pre-requisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial.”On the operational level, the canon on “independence” commands Judges to perform or refrain from certain acts that would “objectively” compromise their independence. On the operationalized level, that is, in reality, “judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable observer” (sec. 5, canon 1). Simply put, “appearing to be” and “recognized for being” can very well be just as important as “being independent.”
* * *
Indeed the Judiciary is — or, at least, it ought to be — the least politicized branch of government. The courts should function independently from considerations other than justice, fairness, and equity. If the last “bulwark of democracy” is to authoritatively speak with finality then it must be sparing, as it is deliberate in its speech. As such, in years past, those who don the judicial robe are, themselves, judged by their decisions, as their written word speak for themselves.* * *
The bottomline is that the bottomline, i.e. “fiscal autonomy”, isn’t the end all and be all of judicial independence. As adverted to in last week’s column, if the problem is in the meager salaries, then the solution is through institutionalized practice, i.e. through a law that is passed for that purpose. If the conviction is that the welfare of our judges needs to be improved, then the increase in their salaries should not be made to depend on the availability of “savings” or the generosity of local government units’ grant of allowances, for doing so would offend against judicial independence.And yet, in the end, the proof of judicial independence is found in Court decisions that are wise, just, and consistent with settled law and jurisprudence. “Judicial independence” as a function of public perception is itself a result of the Court’s reputation. The people’s faith, trust, and confidence in the institution is an important condition for its continued existence; decisions cannot be credible if the people no longer find credence in them. The predictability and regularity of the Court’s decisions are part and parcel of the rule of law, because when the Court cannot give the people what they can expect — justice — then they lose something that they can and ought to look forward to.
Living down the moniker of being an “Arroyo Court” is just one thing; more importantly, it must live up to being the “Supreme Court.”
* * *
xx x ."
