To my utter surprise, my column last Monday, (“Scotus legalizes bribery”) drew a record number of applauses (and some applesauce) via emails, texts, and phone calls from here and abroad.
FROM NEW YORK CITY, a reader who prefers to be anonymous, sent me a screenshot of the top left corner (roughly the headline) of the Google top news in the United States taken at 10:30 a.m. on July 29, NYC time (but fed 18 hours prior), showing my column and portrait. My humble column was placed alongside other news items by The Guardian, and an item titled “Ex-AT&T boss accused of bribing Michael Madigan” by the Chicago Tribune. This Google page has catapulted the Inquirer among the most respected British and US dailies.
Another US reader emailed a Gallup report on July 30 titled “Approval of US Supreme Court Stalled Near Historic Low.” It explained, “Gallup has tracked [the] approval of the Supreme Court at least once a year over the past quarter century. The court received its highest job rating, 62 percent, in 2000 and 2001. Between 2000 and 2010, majorities of Americans approved of the court’s job in nearly every reading; however, its approval rating languished at 49 percent or below from 2011 to 2017. Majorities again expressed approval from 2018 until 2020 during Donald Trump’s presidency—when three conservative justices were appointed to the court—before dipping below 50 percent since then. The latest reading is from a July 1-21 poll, which began the day the court issued its last decisions for the 2023-2024 term.”
FROM SOME OF MY RETIRED COLLEAGUES IN OUR SUPREME COURT, let me quote the esteemed J Antonio T. Carpio, “This Scotus decision is utterly shameful and morally bankrupt. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Those Scotus justices are announcing publicly that they expect to collect gratuities after they retire. All US government officials can also expect the same gratuities.”
J Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez who heads our Supreme Court’s Judicial Integrity Board that investigates judicial misconduct in all courts except the Supreme Court (which has its own ethics committee) was equally appalled, “Chief, I am also flabbergasted and shocked. This is not the Court we knew. Sadly, the sterling Justices we visited and admired have retired.”
To be fair, let me also quote J Vicente V. Mendoza, a Yale alumnus no less, the lone Scotus defender, “The real question or gravamen of the crime here may not really be whether payment was given before or after the subject of the crime. The Court held that those given before are inherently bribes but those amounting to 5,000 dollars or more which are given after may only be tokens [of] appreciation and do not per se show a corrupt state of mind. In the case in question, the transaction was worth 1.1 million dollars but the payment to the mayor was only 13,000 dollars [that] may not really show corrupt intent.”
From the academe, the learned law Dean Nilo Divina was terse, “I concur with nary a dissent, CJ.” From the business sector, the outspoken former president of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry Edgardo Lacson snickered, “… shocking indeed to know the Scotus distinguished bribery and gratuity by a timeline… [it] clearly handed down a politically silly and kindergarten decision… [it has] the BEST JUSTICES MONEY CAN BUY.” And from the medical profession, Dr. Jose Acuin, medical director of the Asian Hospital, texted in Taglish, “… as my father would say, Hindi ka pwedeng sumuntok pag may nakatago sa kilikili mo.”
TO RESTORE TRUST AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE SCOTUS, outgoing US President Joe Biden proposed on July 29 three measures: “(1) No Immunity for Crimes a Former President Committed in Office … President Biden … is calling for a constitutional amendment that makes clear no President is above the law or immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office … (2) Term Limits … to ensure the Court’s membership changes with some regularity … President Biden supports a system in which the President would appoint a Justice every two years to spend eighteen years in active service on the Supreme Court. And (3) Binding Code of Conduct … that requires Justices to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity, and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest. Supreme Court Justices should not be exempt from the enforceable Code of Conduct that applies to every other federal judge.”
To effectuate his reforms, Biden needs the support of the US Congress. But will the honorable US legislators follow their lame-duck president?
As for me, I wrote my three columns not to degrade the Scotus further into the abyss but to entice it to levitate itself. I merely stated the facts and the truth, for the truth shall set the Scotus free to climb anew to its former Olympian heights that I used to look up to.
At bottom, I firmly believe that justice is blind and that justices must be beyond reproach. My prayer is for the Scotus to rise like the Phoenix and become again the indisputable cradle of the rule of law and the unblemished judicial standard for all freedom-loving countries.
Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com