KEY FACTORS FOR JUDICIAL REFORM (Part 3)

As we celebrate the 116^th Independence Day of our beloved country this year, I find it truly ironic that we are still talking about attaining judicial independence. This is a clear manifestation that we have not still attained genuine democracy where the Rule of Law is a way of life and embraced by the whole Filipino nation. It is very clear that we are still in this messy situation because of political patronage. The sad part is that many of those not observing the Rule of Law are people in government, who are even involved in the administration of justice.

Still, advocates for transformation of the justice system, find much consolation nowadays that there is a widespread discussion on what ails our justice system particularly, the judiciary.

It is unfortunate that  misuse of the people’s money is of such staggering proportion when so many are wallowing in poverty - many of whom are innocent and young children. Many advocates believe that if the justice system is working the way it should, this would not happen.

Indeed, the degree of  corruption in government being revealed, in what we pride as a predominantly Christian country, is mind boggling. Somehow we appease ourselves that with the filing of cases against some of those involved with promises of more cases to come, we see rays of hope in our country. Things are moving now unlike the previous years;and with those matters being openly discussed, more people are informed and educated about the justice system.

Many people, including media practitioners are learning about the need to respect and uphold the Rule of Law. Thus, there is a need to have independent bodies and institutions tasked in the administration of justice.

The filing of cases of plunder and violation of laws on anti graft and corrupt practices, against several political leaders, while lauded by a huge sector of our society, also brings so much controversy. Even the National President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines concurs with the observation by many, especially those now charged of plunder, that there seems to be “selective justice” under the present administration.

The Department of Justice Secretary points out that other cases shall be filed very soon even against administration allies. Secretary Leila De Lima stressed that the three senators from the opposition are only the first set of accused considering that the evidence that got into their hands pertain only to them.

It can be recalled that the evidence against those charged with plunder only got into the hands of the government thru the National Bureau of Investigation because of  Benhur Luy,  who is a complainant against Janet Lim Napoles  in a case of Serious Illegal Detention. The pork barrel anomalies were discovered by the NBI thru Benhur Luy and the other whistleblowers.

We thank God for the whistleblowers who are now providing the evidence needed for the cases filed, and others which will be filed soon. They are also instrumental in bringing to the public’s attention the whole pork barrel anomaly. We are also thankful that the Supreme Court already ruled that the pork barrel practice, the PDAF, is unconstitutional.

The various sectors of society appear to be now  more empowered in demanding from government how the justice system should operate. People are saying no to selective justice. People are asserting that friends and foes alike must be made to face the consequences of their illegal and anomalous acts.

People are watching the moves undertaken by the courts and all those tasked in the administration of justice. This is truly a good and exciting development in the history of our nation.

For the Transformative Justice Institute and the advocates of Judicial Reform, the 116^th Independence Day celebration in our country will mean a stronger commitment and more deliberate and purposeful actions that can lead to judicial independence.

It is a well known fact that the selection, appointment and promotion processes of judges and justices is not freed from partisan politics despite the clear intent of the 1987 Constitution.

Article Vlll Sections 8 and 9 of of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides the following:

“Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.

(2) The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a term of four years with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Xxxxxx

(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a record of its proceedings.

(4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be determined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the appropriations of the Council.

(5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.

Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.

For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within ninety days from the submission of the list.”

The above-quoted provisions of the Constitution, if ethically observed and duly complied with, bearing in mind the check and balance role of the three branches of the government and freed from any form of partisan politics, should have a been a key factor in attaining Judicial Independence. As we all know, that is not the situation right now considering that politicians would oftentimes assert their influence in the selection, appointment and even promotion of Judges and Justices.

It is a well known fact that in the recent past, most applicant for positions in the Judiciary get endorsements  from known political leaders. Some politicians influence members of the Judicial and Bar Council to include in the list of Nominees their favored candidate.

There were reports that some members of the JBC themselves suggest to applicants to get the endorsements of certain politicians. Worse, when the favored applicant is not included in the list of Nominees forwarded by the JBC to the Office of the President in Malacanang Palace, the same is returned back to the JBC, who reportedly kowtow to the dictates of the palace. Ergo, the desires of partisan political leaders oftentimes succeed thus, those who get appointed  feel beholden to those political leaders. As a result those judges or justices tend to give back favors by giving in to requests of favorable decisions or judgments for their poltical patrons or their allies.

NGO groups succeeded to a certain extent in pressing for transparency in the process of selection and nomination by the JBC. But stories like that of a highly qualified MTCC Judge overdue for promotion still abound. Many applicants for appointments or promotion in the Judiciary share  similar experiences with little variation from the following story which I am personally aware of.

The female Judge who rose from the ranks having been a Branch Clerk of Court, Public Prosecutor and later City Judge applied for appointment as Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in a city in Mindanao. She only applied for promotion after eleven years as a city judge. Since she was  awarded by the Supreme Court and the Foundation for Judicial Excellence for outstanding performance, the JBC nominated her as number one in the list. She is highly qualified for promotion and many lawyers found it strange that she was not promoted despite repeated nominations from the JBC.

The organization of women lawyers  in the locality who kept  on endorsing  the Judge everytime she fails to get the appointment from the Office of the President conducted some discreet investigation.

Later, the lawyers group learned that the one blocking the appointment of the highly qualified female Judge is the Mayor in their locality. The reason being that the Mayor believes that the relatives/family of the Judge are followers/voters of his political opponents. The Judge upon reaching the age of 70 availed of compulsory retirement only as City Judge. What happened in her case is also a clear injustice due to patronage politics.

In discussions on DEVS, Development thru Enrichment of Values and Spirituality, involving true to life stories like the one shared above, advocates cannot help but stress how lovely and peaceful are the lives of those who deserved promotions but are blocked for wrong reasons. The nominees remain at peace with such gentle and quiet spirit.  On the contrary, lives of the political leaders who abused their power and connections are so messy and even their family members are deeply troubled.  

Filipinos coming from all the sectors of society need to join hands to completely put a halt to this culture of political patronage especially among those charged in the administration of justice.

Given the allegations of “selective justice” even among politicians who are entangled in the present justice system, all political leaders of whatever party must now realize that it is important to ensure that there is judicial independence so that when they face any form of charges, they will feel confident that those who will hear their cases will merely consider the facts, as supported by evidence and the applicable laws. Political leaders must support the call for Judicial Independence.

Colossians 3 verses 23 to 25 of the New Testament admonishes:

“ Whatever you do, do your work heartily as for the Lord rather than for human beings, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve. For they that do wrong will receive the consequences of all the wrong which they have done, and that without partiality”.

 Dory Cruz Avisado

6-12-14