At Large
Transparency in the JBC
By Rina Jimenez-David
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:42:00 12/02/2008
Filed Under: Judiciary (system of justice), SC appointments
In a few days, the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), which is tasked with preparing the short list of candidates for vacancies in the Supreme Court to be submitted to Malacañang, will meet again. On the agenda is the important question of whether to make the voting records of the JBC members public.
Why is this issue receiving so much attention and raising such heated debates? Well, in the view of those advocating for more transparency in the selection process, revealing to the public the voting records of the JBC members will make them more accountable to the citizenry for their choices and decisions. Transparency, accountability and responsiveness to public views in the JBC are especially important in the coming year, when seven Supreme Court justices will be retiring, giving rise to the specter of a Supreme Court—which heads the separate and independent judicial branch of government and renders opinions on the constitutionality of laws and executive actions—almost completely composed of appointees of a single president: Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Observers, including leading lights of the legal community, cannot but be concerned about how the dominance of Arroyo appointees in the high court could impact its future decisions, particularly in such contested and controversial issues like Charter change and a seemingly indefinite extension of the President’s term.
The President, it must be stressed, has been given the power to appoint new Supreme Court justices when vacancies occur. But to ensure that the new choices will not be based solely on loyalty to the President and thus the predictability of their decisions and positions, integrity and objectivity in the process of preparing the short list must be observed. And to keep the JBC true to its mandate, the members’ voting records must be made public.
* * *
After all, if the JBC members, who come from the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, the House and the Senate, as well as from the legal community, have nothing to hide, and are doing their sworn duty to screen applicants thoroughly so that only the best legal minds and those with a track record of honesty and integrity sit on the highest court of the land, they should have nothing to fear.
A president sits in office only after going though a grueling campaign and being elected by the people. So with senators and members of the House of Representatives. Cabinet appointees, while not elected, can sit only after going through thorough vetting by members of the Commission on Appointments. Only members of the judiciary are appointed to office, and it is in the interest of good governance and good law that the process be made as open to the public as possible, with as wide a latitude as possible given to public participation, by way of nomination or access to the proceedings.
* * *
In a position paper, the Supreme Court Appointments Watch (SCAW) Project, composed of the Alternative Law Groups, Libertas, Philippine Association of Law Schools, the Transparency and Accountability Network, and Newsbreak as media partner, explains the need for making the public know how the JBC members vote:
“It is not known how the members vote on the candidates they evaluate. By practice, the JBC keeps its voting records confidential. The voting outcome (i.e. the number of votes each candidate on the JBC short list received) is available through media sources, but is not released officially to the public by the JBC. Some members of the JBC have gone so far as to claim that the voting records are kept confidential in order to prevent the JBC members from being exposed to external pressure.”
The Supreme Court itself has ruled in previous instances that deliberations of government agencies are “imbued with public interest” and thus should be made available to the public. In 1991, for instance, the Court ruled that voting records of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) should be made public since the board is performing a public function and their decisions are public in character, therefore “subject to the people’s right to information.”
Doesn’t this hold true of the JBC as well, whose deliberations have far more significance to the life of the nation?
“For too long the public has been kept in the dark about the processes of the Judicial and Bar Council,” writes SCAW in a position paper. “For too long the members of the JBC have been avoiding accountability by hiding behind the confidentiality of their vote. And for too long, the appointment process to the Supreme Court has been in doubt. Strengthening the public trust in the JBC and the Supreme Court starts with an open, transparent and accountable process.”
* * *
It was J. Conrado Castro, representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in the JBC, who first submitted the proposal to make the voting records public. Sources say the proposal was met with stiff opposition from Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, Rep. Mat Defensor (who chairs the House justice committee), and Supreme Court Associate Justice Regino Hermosisima. Five members of the JBC are said to be supportive of the move, while the views of the others, including one of the newest members, Senate justice committee chair Sen. Francis Escudero, are unknown.
Meanwhile, the SCAW has formed a Citizens’ Search Committee to screen nominations from the public for possible inclusion in the JBC short list. The committee members are: Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ, Justice (ret.) Hilarion Aquino, professor Solita Collas-Monsod, businessman Edward Go, Ambassador Albert F. del Rosario, lawyers Andres Bautista and Raissa Jajurie.
|
