SC tops SWS poll

The Supreme Court topped the latest SWS public satisfaction poll (conducted on Sept. 26-29) of the major government institutions, with 32 percent net satisfaction rating (54 percent satisfied minus 22 percent dissatisfied), followed by the Senate, 28 percent; House of Representatives, 21 percent; and Cabinet, 18 percent.

Stringent qualifications. Although litigations are not decided via public opinion surveys, still this poll is significant because the Court, as a democratic institution, must always retain long-term public trust. Especially during tough times, it is the beacon of hope and succor of our people. It cannot perform this role without such enduring public trust.

Truly, the work of the judiciary is sacrosanct. That is why justices of the Supreme Court are referred to as the “gods of Padre Faura.” They decide cases involving the life, liberty, honor and property of our people. The Constitution recognizes this unique role by imposing strict requirements for entry to the judiciary.

While the Charter requires only citizenship, age, residence, suffrage and “read-and-write” qualifications for the top officials of the executive and legislative branches, it commands all magistrates to be of “proven competence, integrity, probity and independence,” as well as to be members of the Philippine bar and to have practiced law for a fixed number of years.

In addition, I believe they must also be industrious to be able to cope with the heavy case backlog and render speedy justice, and to have a philosophy of law so their decisions can be predictable.

The Constitution mandates the Judicial and Bar Council to screen and nominate, based on these qualifications, at least three of the “best and brightest” lawyers for every judicial vacancy. Only from this limited list may the president choose his/her appointee. No confirmation by the Commission on Appointments is needed.

Higher standard. Those finally allowed to enter the restrictive judicial doors are shielded by the Charter from political, financial and social stresses. They “hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of 70.”

Justices of the Supreme Court may be removed only by the tedious process of impeachment; lower court judges can be disciplined, suspended or ousted only for cause and only by the Supreme Court. Their compensation cannot be reduced, thereby assuring independence.

When much is given, much is required. Those authorized to judge others must pass a higher standard. Otherwise, they lose moral ascendancy, if not their very office.

They leave behind all humanity and become gods of law, beholden only to blindfolded justice, and loyal only to the Constitution and the rule of law, not to presidents, as stressed by CJ Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno. While gratitude and friendships are cherished Filipino values, they end where duty to the Constitution and the people begin.

This is why whenever some jurists misbehave, the whole judiciary is diminished, and why disciplinary actions must be meted out speedily and strictly. On the other hand, many litigants cannot accept defeat and spew corruption rumors at the judiciary. Only the untarnished reputation of jurists protects them from these ugly murmurings, as the SWS poll shows.

Predictability and stability. As earlier stated, magistrates should also have a known philosophy of law so their decisions would be predictable, and in turn jurisprudence would be stable and rumor-free. An example is how jurists interpret the Constitution, based on their philosophy of law.

The textualists or originalists interpret according to the original intent of the framers, regardless of the dire consequences on current and future events. They rely on “dura lex sed lex.” Their self-imposed duty is “to apply laws faithfully and desist from engaging in socio-economic or political experimentations,” which they denounce as “judicial legislation.”

On the other hand, the liberals or progressives believe in a living Constitution—one that grows with time, solves the vagaries of the present, and anticipates the needs of the future. I belong to this latter group that believes that jurists are not mere social technicians and legal automatons. Rather, they are social engineers who courageously fix their gaze on the underlying principles and overarching aspirations of the Constitution to nurture a free and prosperous nation.

The US Supreme Court has been struggling for a long time on these differing interpretation philosophies. As then chief justice, I visited US Justice Antonin Scalia, said to be the leader of the originalists in the US Court. I invited him to speak before the Global Forum on Liberty and Prosperity that our Supreme Court was sponsoring on Oct. 18-20, 2006, just prior to my retirement.

He smiled and said, “Mr. Chief Justice, you do not really want me there. I would be useless in the Forum because I do not believe in international law. When I joined the Court, I swore to defend the US Constitution and nothing else. And I interpret it according to the original intent of our framers, which did not include international law. Please see my friend, Justice Anthony Kennedy. I am sure he will welcome an opportunity to expound on his international ideas.”

True enough, when I saw Justice Kennedy later, he agreed to speak at our Global Forum even if via teleconferencing only, because he had already committed to be in another venue on those dates.

With such known philosophies, one can reasonably predict their positions on specific issues.

* * *

Comments to [email protected]