Get Real
Good apples, do your part!
By Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 03:01:00 08/23/2008
MANILA, Philippines—I am not sure what the scope of the ongoing investigation by a panel of retired Supreme Court justices is. But judging from what I read in the papers, it certainly should not be limited only to purported improprieties committed by certain members of the Court of Appeals with regard to the case involving the Government Service Insurance System and Manila Electric Co. Because it has certainly, if inadvertently, exposed a lot of dirty linen of the appellate court to a public washing, what with most of those facing the panel behaving in what can only be called an injudicious manner, which is the opposite of how they should behave in the first place.
Consider only what has been uncovered during the investigation: justices entering into discussions about a pending case not only outside the courtroom but also with those who have no business whatsoever discussing the case; describing as “evidence” what a freshman or sophomore law student would immediately consider hearsay; engaging in name-calling with fellow jurists, or casting aspersions on their character and their integrity.
Actions and words that are imprudent, unwise, incautious, inappropriate (also, inadvisable, misguided, hasty, rash, ill-judged, harebrained)—which is how “injudicious” is defined.
Of course, this is not the first time that the Court of Appeals has been enmeshed in charges of corruption. If I remember right, some justices have received warnings, figurative slaps on the wrist, and were even removed by the Supreme Court. Definitely, last year, there was some kind of scandal in Cebu, where accusations were made about the granting of temporary restraining orders (TROs) for financial considerations. But this is the first time appeals court justices are turning on each other. As a result, the reputation of the whole Court of Appeals, already impaired, has now been damaged almost beyond repair. That is why a full-fledged investigation into the extent of corruption and/or incompetence in that institution is called for, which should then be the basis of a major overhaul. Better still—particularly since Chief Justice Reynato Puno has his plate full with matters of the Supreme Court and the rest of the judiciary—perhaps the good apples in the Court of Appeals barrel (and I know for a fact that there are good apples) should get together and start the ball rolling, initiating a cleanup among themselves, some sort of a self-policing process.
Preposterous? Never been done? Admitted. But it is way better than for the good apples just to sit back and play dead, allowing themselves to be tarred along with the rotten ones. Maybe, they could start by entering into a memorandum of agreement to the effect that they would submit themselves to a lifestyle check, and ask the rest of the 69 members of the appellate members to sign along with them. And if any of their colleagues try to get out of the agreement by claiming that this would be beneath their dignity, there is an immediate answer: The court’s dignity is already in tatters, and this is an important first step toward regaining it.
If the above is still considered a lousy suggestion, it should nevertheless stand until a better one is offered.
In the meantime, just so we don’t go off the deep end and think—as we are wont to do—the worst of ourselves, let me apply the misery-loves-company principle and share with the reader some vignettes about judicial corruption in a couple of our neighboring countries. (Yes, Virginia, we are not alone!)
A 2004 government-conducted survey on corruption in Thailand (done for the Civil Service Commission and financed by the World Bank and Asia Foundation) has these findings: 10 percent of households said they had paid bribes when visiting public offices. The bribes averaged 1,000 baht (at the time, $22) per year per household. And here’s the part about the justice system: Of those involved in court cases over the two-year period 1999-2000, 31 percent reported that they had been asked to pay bribes averaging 30,000 baht per case—with payments going to the police, public prosecutors, judges, secretary and clerical staff of the court and middlemen. And by the way, in the same survey 30 percent of voters replied that they had been offered money for their votes, averaging 700 baht per household.
Then there is China. From Peerenboom’s “China’s Long March Toward the Rule of Law” (2002), one gets a description of corruption in the Chinese judiciary that could arguably be worse than what is going on in the Philippines: “Rampant corruption within the courts has badly tarnished the image and stature of the judiciary: judges demanding bribes, meeting ex parte (I looked this up. It means with respect to or in the interests of one side only or of an interested outside party.—SCM) with parties in restaurants or Karaoke bars.... Lawyers recounted instances where they received calls late at night to go to settle a bill run up by judges and their friends at restaurants and saunas or to pay for the shopping expedition of a judge who ‘forgot’ her purse.
“Even official accounts acknowledge that the corruption is becoming more serious and widespread. The 1996 Supreme People’s Procuratorate Work Report stated ... 3,792 members of the judiciary were investigated for crimes, a 40-percent increase over the previous year, including 1,055 cases of illegal personal enrichment, an increase of 100 percent over the previous year.”
Ninoy Aquino said that the Filipino is worth dying for. Ergo, at the very least he is worth fighting for. Calling the good apples in the Court of Appeals barrel. Do your part.
|
