Independent Sereno

The news conference last Thursday was as extraordinary as it was rare: Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, for only the second time since her appointment to the Supreme Court, met the press in a lengthy and candid give-and-take. But the head of the only nonpolitical branch of government succeeded in her purpose of asserting the judiciary’s nonpolitical nature by excelling in a forum that was decidedly political—that is, she conducted the conference to court public opinion.

“The judiciary is strong if the people believe in it,” she said at one point. To be sure, she emphasized other sources of the judiciary’s strength, including independence from other powers and an abiding commitment to the Constitution. But her remarks may be best understood as an appeal to the audiences of the various media organizations present at the briefing to “believe” in the Supreme Court she leads and in the judicial system she administers.

She said: “What I am, what we are, is an independent court, and that should remain the way it is. We are going to assure our people that… our independence will be maintained to the end.”

As we understand it, her purpose in meeting media representatives was to defend the Supreme Court against President Aquino’s continuing criticism, first, by denying that the high court was under undue pressure from the administration (“bullying does not exist right now”); second, by presuming good faith in the President (“I have enormous respect for the President and I’m sure he also respects the office of the Chief Justice”); third, by emphasizing the Court’s professionalism (“it should not shirk from its constitutional duty even if it may result in inconvenience”); fourth, by reporting the judiciary’s problems with increasing its budget (the national budget “is terribly balanced against us”); and, finally and constantly, by asserting the independence of the third, coequal branch of government.

“It is always important for me to uphold the independence of my office on a daily basis. It is important that people see that the Chief Justice has the Constitution first and foremost on her mind, and her devotion to duty and her loyalty to country is always unquestioned.”

In all, it was an impressive performance. She even managed to phrase her request for greater funding support from the executive and legislative branches in terms politicians could readily understand: “You have to see that it is in your best interest to support the judiciary. It cannot even fund its own ambitious reform program. If it cannot do that, support must come from the two other branches.”

But Sereno is only human, and something she said points to a potential problem in the future (she is expected to retire in 2030 yet). Her remarks about her dedication to duty and loyalty to the country going “always unquestioned” sounded a false note, because in fact the democratic project requires that no official must be given a free pass; every purpose, every motivation, every act, must be periodically subject to testing. We know what she meant to say, of course; she was committed to duty and country—and we have no reason to doubt her sincerity. But the idea that someone’s devotion to country cannot be questioned revived memories about her recent confrontation with Francis Jardeleza, then the solicitor general and now the newest member of the Supreme Court, whom she accused of treason over what was essentially a policy difference. She must be ready to offer other officials the same latitude she expects the public to give to her.

But that misstep aside, Thursday’s news conference was a command performance. She appealed to the public’s need for certainty (something that has been undermined by the Aquino administration’s foolish flirting with the possibility of a second term) by noting that “devotion to duty adds stability to the system.” She also provided both the reporters present and the citizens watching or listening to the briefing with the sound bite that, at one and the same time, summarized all her arguments and put the President’s criticism in perspective:

“It should be clear to everybody that the Supreme Court could only be loyal to the Constitution.” Indeed.