Transformation of SC justices

Assuming his Supreme Court seat on Aug. 20, Justice Francis H. Jardeleza aptly declared, “I will dispense my duties with competence, integrity, probity and independence, always bearing in mind the interest of the Filipino people.” To these four traits required by the Constitution (which I code-named “CIPI”), may I add industry to speed up the cases in the Court. I agree with him that justices should promote the interest of our people by, in my humble view, safeguarding liberty and nurturing prosperity. History will judge judges on how they adhered to CIPI++.

Immortalized in books. Justices often disappoint the presidents who appointed them and who expected their unswerving loyalty because they inevitably become independent after undergoing a life-changing transformation. How?

Let me begin my answer by saying that no university on earth teaches a course on how to be a Supreme Court justice. As Anthony Lewis wrote in “Gideon’s Trumpet” (1996, p. 217), “a justice brings to the task only his character, his intellect, his education, his experience, his human understanding, his imagination.” Thereafter, I believe, he/she relies on creativity, innovation, reflection and prayers.

Career jurists who ascended to the Court via the judicial hierarchy are lucky in that their adjustments to the lonely perches on the highest tribunal were not sudden or unexpected, unlike those of us who were picked straight from private practice or from the academe or from the nonjudicial branches of government.

But even career magistrates tell me that something does happen when they don the robes of the Supreme Court. All at once, new appointees feel a new beginning. Immediately, they realize the god-like finality of their acts and decisions which, whether right or wrong, are not reviewed, modified or reversed by any agency of the government.  Instead, they are immortalized in books to be criticized, damned or acclaimed years after they have passed to the Great Beyond.

Standards for decisions. Members of Congress are called upon by their constituents to account for their actions while Cabinet members must, day-by-day, merit the trust and confidence of the President.

Hence, to the elected, popular approval is the powerful 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.

The permanency of tenure and the independence accorded to justices by our Constitution partly explain why they are able to withstand temporary political passions and rages. Their freedom to decide enables them to do things which others may think to be correct but have no courage to fulfill because of fear of electoral rejection or presidential rebuff. It is also these rare luxuries of tenure and independence that excise jurists from parochial prejudices, and help them to decide objectively and consistently.

Indeed, the search for principles and doctrines is the bedrock of the work of jurists. A litigation is won not because one side gets more votes from the people, but because it is upheld by the law through the process of reasoning.

In the Supreme Court, cases are won or lost not because of popular palatability or compromise or friendship or bargaining or pecuniary considerations, but because of reasoned arguments based on legal principles and precedents.

This is not to say that the Court is averse to public opinion. In fact, I daresay that the Court is effective only as long as it retains the faith and trust of the public, without which, the Court becomes useless, as it cannot enforce its own pronouncements. It does not command the army or the police or the “raging mob;” neither does it have the money to grease political patronage.

Public trust. There is a difference between the shifting winds of public emotion and the long-term public trust in the institution. While critics may rant from time to time against some decisions or opinions, the Court must enjoy enough residual respect, with the constant hope that one day it will prove to be right.

And even if they may disagree, its level-headed critics should respect it enough to concede its good faith, and likewise the wisdom, probity and diligence with which its members do their work. They must realize that, in our system of government, the Court’s function is not to mirror popular ideas but to teach and to open new vistas to enlightened opinion.

In this light, the mettle of magistrates is tested by their capacity to stand by their convictions when the mob rages against them, threatens their families, and chants slogans of hate. For that is the nature of our conscience—it prevents us from doing the wrong thing just because it is easy and pleasurable; rather, it impels us to do what is right, no matter how painful and difficult.

Such is the role of jurists—to uphold the basic norms of society and to defend the people’s constitutional rights, notwithstanding tyrants, lynch mobs and even the best intentioned but ill-informed critics. They do not lust for the brute power of the executive or the patronage of the legislature. They pray only for courage, integrity and sagacity for these are their only tools to earn the people’s trust.

Finally, presidents should be proud, not disappointed, when their appointees fulfill their duty with CIPI++ . To win cases, they should not rely on blind loyalty; instead, they should learn how the Court functions, and how and why justices transform.

* * *

Comments to [email protected]