When the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa Branch 204, presided over by Judge Abraham Joseph G. Alcantara—acquitted former senator Leila de Lima of drug trafficking, critics praised the judiciary. But the same critics were unforgiving when the same RTC—this time, Branch 256 presided over by Judge Romeo S. Buenaventura—denied her petition for bail.
SIMILARLY, WHEN THE SUPREME COURT DISBARRED Lorenzo “Larry” Gadon, the critics clapped their hands. But, earlier on, when it granted the petition for habeas corpus of, and freed, Jessica Lucila “Gigi” Reyes, the critics booed the Court.
In the not-so-distant past, when the Sandiganbayan convicted former president Joseph Estrada of plunder, the critics thunderously applauded. After he was pardoned by then president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and allowed by the Supreme Court to run for (and win as) mayor of Manila, the critics lampooned the Court.
Indeed, the Court and the judiciary in general have been applauded or lampooned for their actions in public interest cases. While I concede that fair comment is integral to the freedom of speech, I believe such comments, pro or contra, should be factually true and legally correct. Knee-jerk reactions and opportunistic media grabs serve transitory glory but injure public trust in the courts.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS are called upon by their constituencies to account for their actions while Cabinet members (and their assistants) must, day by day, merit the trust and confidence of the President, who himself is accountable to the people. Hence, to the elected, the current popular sentiment is the powerful catalyst and barometer of their success or failure.
On the other hand, magistrates must live in a world of reason where logic, evidence, and conscience are their only yardsticks. They source their legitimacy from the Constitution that was ratified overwhelmingly by the people.
The permanency of tenure and the independence accorded to justices by our Constitution partly explain why they are able to withstand slings and arrows. The freedom to decide according to their conscience without fear of political vengeance, enables them to write and do things which others may think to be correct, but have no courage to write or act accordingly due to fear of electoral rejection or presidential rebuff. It is also these rare luxuries of tenure and independence that excise jurists from parochial ties and help them decide objectively and consistently according to principles and credos.
INDEED, THE SEARCH FOR PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES is the very essence and bedrock of the work of jurists. A litigation is won or lost not because one side gets more votes from the people, but because it is upheld by the law through a process of reasoning. Neither are decisions the products of diplomatic quid pro quo like, “I will vote with you in this case, provided you vote with me in this other case.”
Indeed, cases are won or lost not because of political palatability or compromise or friendship, or pecuniary considerations, but because of reasoned arguments proceeding from legal principles and precedents. This is not to say that the Court (and the judiciary) is averse to public opinion. In fact, I dare say that it is effective only as long as it retains the faith and trust of the public. Without the support of the populace, it becomes useless, as it cannot enforce its own pronouncements. It does not command the army, the police, or the “raging mob.”
But there is a difference between the shifting winds of public opinion and the long-term public trust in the institution. While critics and pressure groups may rant from time to time or all the time, the Court (and the judiciary) must enjoy enough residual respect and esteem, with the constant hope that it would one day prove to be right after all.
According to the late US Justice Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court is “the conscience of society.” In this light, the test of the magistrates’ mettle is their capacity to stand by their convictions when the executive, the legislators, and/or the mob rage against them, threaten their families, and chant slogans of hate. For that is the nature of our conscience—it prevents us from doing the wrong and convenient thing; rather, it impels us to do what is right, no matter how painful and how difficult.
Such is the nature of the Supreme Court—to uphold the basic tenets of democracy and the fundamental rights of the people, notwithstanding tyrants, lynch mobs, and even the best-intentioned but ill-informed crusaders. The Court does not lust for the brute power of the executive. Neither does it desire the patronage of the legislature. It prays only for courage, integrity, and sagacity, for these are the only tools with which to fulfill its work and to deserve the public trust.
Ironic as it may seem, I say that the unelected Supreme Court is not merely the conscience of society; it is also the last bastion of democracy and the ultimate defender of the people’s rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Our duty as citizens is to help the Court and the judiciary remain faithful to these high expectations.
Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com