Cleansing judiciary possible, but only via out-of-box approaches

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno was reported as exhorting lawyers to peach on corrupt magistrates (“Expose corrupt judges, Sereno urges lawyers,” Second Front Page, 9/27/13). She dangled “amnesty” as a way of encouraging them to do their part in ridding the judiciary of scalawags…”  If they were complicit in any form of bribery, the Supreme Court could clothe them with ample immunity from disbarment and/or criminal prosecution—that is, if they themselves did some “whistle-blowing.” That’s a tough call to make.

But let’s start with the most simple things first. Some years ago, I did my bit of civic-mindedness by cobbling a letter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) regarding the truancy of many trial judges in Metro Manila who had acquired the bad habit of starting court proceedings way past 10 o’clock in the morning, instead of the regular hour of 8 o’clock. I should know. I had cases pending in those courts. And for reasons too obvious to belabor, that letter was anonymous.

I followed that up with several phone calls, using a fictitious name. I was informed that for the OCA to give “due course” to any complaint against a sitting judge, there must be a “verified complaint,” i.e., a charge formally making out accusatory allegations and signed by the complainant under oath, preferably with documentary evidence (if any). In other words, I would have to sign my own death warrant! Needless to say, I was not ready to retire from trial practice. From that time on, I ceased and desisted from railing against “pasaway” judges. (Happily, a number of them have since retired; sadly, copycats have taken their place.)

What bestirred me into writing that letter was the extreme irritation being suffered by us—lawyers, litigants and witnesses alike—who had to travel through humongous traffic early enough to be in court punctually, only to cool our heels while the judges took their sweet time. But more than that, it was a criminal waste of precious time that should have been used to dispose of so many cases clogging the court dockets. As had happened more often than not, in municipal courts, the only thing “accomplished” in those mornings was the “reading of the calendar” (the menu for any given day could list 50 or 60 cases)! Thus, postponements became the main entrée “for lack of material time”! And hearings on those cases were reset for several months thereafter due to “congested calendars”!

That the regional courts had lesser items on their menus was certainly no excuse for the judges to be slothful.  Their own habitual tardiness also caused delays in the administration of justice.

Yet, there was really no necessity for any complainant to be forced to identify himself (thereby exposing himself to a tyrannical judge’s wrath) in such instances. How hard could it be for the OCA to think out of the box and dispatch somebody to the courts in question (in Metro Manila)—incognito—to do a random check and see first-hand whether or not such an anonymous complaint had any factual basis?

The trouble is, some persnickety rules and protocols stand in the way of getting things done.

—STEPHEN L. MONSANTO,

Monsanto Law Office,

Loyola Heights, Quezon City,

[email protected]