Public rebuke of the Supreme Court
For the first time in the history of the State of the Nation Address (Sona) in our country, a president publicly criticized the judiciary in its handling of some cases.
With Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in attendance on Monday, President Duterte expressed in his Sona his dismay over the Supreme Court’s issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) that has derailed the implementation of the Reproductive Health Act. He also assailed the courts for issuing TROs that delay the completion of government infrastructure projects, and asked that they consider the national interest before issuing those orders.
But despite his expression of frustration at the judiciary, the President refrained from using the cuss words that usually characterize his tirades against corrupt public officials, and that indeed marked much of his Sona.
Sereno was shown on television smiling when the President made the unprecedented in-your-face “reprimand” of the head of a coequal branch of the government.
This was the third time since Mr. Duterte assumed office that he railed against TROs that impede the prompt completion of infrastructure projects.
A similar complaint (although less caustic) was made by then President Benigno Aquino III in 2015 when he inaugurated his administration’s first private-public partnership project, the Muntinlupa–Cavite Expressway.
Although there were instances in the past when presidents complained about decisions of the high court, one of which led to the removal of then Chief Justice Renato Corona, the criticisms have lately become persistent and more strident.
These brickbats cannot be simply ignored by Sereno and the justices as par for the course, or something to expect from losing parties in a court case. When the manifestation of dismay with the judiciary comes from the highest official of the land, it should be treated seriously and not swept under the rug.
Regardless of the merits of the President’s rants against the high court and judges, it cannot be denied that his disparaging remarks have affected the public’s perception of the credibility of our justice system.
Unlike elected officials who draw their authority from the mandate they receive from the electorate, the members of the judiciary rely only on their probity and integrity as basis for the acceptance of their decisions as fair and just.
Outside of the sheriffs, the courts do not have the personnel and instruments to enforce their judgment. They rely on the sense of respect for their standing in our government system by the offices concerned to comply with their decisions and, where proper, impose compliance by force on those who refuse to do so.
Thus, it is essential that the high court, as the overall supervisor of the judiciary, take appropriate measures to counter the impression created by the President’s address—that it is an obstacle to national progress and development.
With Mr. Duterte presently enjoying, based on a recent survey, 82 percent approval and trust ratings, it is reasonable to assume that his critical view of the courts resonated with the people who approve of his governance style. Note that the majority of them may not be averse to taking the law into their hands if they think the courts cannot be trusted to render fair and just judgments on their grievances.
Mere denials or taking exception to the President’s remarks on the high court’s apparent obstructionist posture vis-à-vis the Reproductive Health Act and the TROs issued on government infrastructure projects will not suffice. Something more concrete or effective has to be done by the high court to assure the public that it is an active participant in the solution of the country’s problems, and not the problem itself.
For starters, the Chief Justice has to fix some internal problems within her domain. The image of a divided or fractured tribunal would not be helpful in assuring the public that the high court deserves its respect, despite statements to the contrary.
Raul J. Palabrica ([email protected]) writes a weekly column in the Business section of the Inquirer.
