The siege continues. And the public’s condemnation, as well.
In the editorial entitled “To Save The Court” of the Philippine Daily Inquirer (09/10/2008), despite the praises given by the newspaper to the Philippine Supreme Court for its “fast and furious” (but “perhaps not far-reaching enough), action against the Court of Appeals justices involved in the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) case. In a span of 40 days, the Court acted to punish the guilty Court of Appeals justices. Which was just as well, for otherwise the integrity and the credibility of the CA, if not of the entire justice system, would have been irreparably damaged, the editorial stated.
It added, however, that to the public, the squabble among the justices served to confirm what had been talked about in whispers for years: that some court decisions are made not solely on the basis of the merit but for other considerations, like politics or money.
The editorial continued: “Justice Vicente Roxas, who wrote the decision favoring Meralco, certainly got what he deserved: a dishonorable dismissal from the judiciary. He was dishonest, untruthful and disrespectful of his colleagues, fabricating transcripts of deliberations and resorting to falsehood to get another justice’s signature on the decision. He exhibited “undue interest” in handling the case, as the high court put it, as well as “inexplicable haste” in getting the decision out.”
Paradoxically, Justice Jose Sabio, the whistleblower and legal ethics professor, got cited for unethical conduct in discussing the case with De Borja, Meralco’s intermediary, and with his bother, Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) Chairman Camilo Sabio, who was pleading the case for the Government Service Insurance System, which was seeking control of Meralco. For all this, Justice Sabio got suspended for two months; but, according to the editorial, considering his high office and the gravity of his mistakes, that penalty was nothing worse than a rap on the wrist.
Worse, everyone who was involved in the scandal, except for Roxas, seems to have gotten away lightly. The bottom line is that each and every act of indiscretion the high court deemed to have been committed by all the five CA justices has diminished the people’s respect for them and shaken public confidence in the judicial system. Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, for instance, got away with an admonition (which is not deemed a penalty) for signing the decision without reading the memoranda submitted by both parties and without deliberation by the members of the division. But these acts of omission put in doubt her ability to dispense fair and well-considered decisions. Letting the justices involved keep their jobs doesn’t achieve what the high court sought: to restore public faith in the independence, impartiality and fairness of the judiciary, the editorial argued.
Columnists have repeatedly assailed the extent of graft and corruption and the lack of independence of the Judiciary.
In his column September 11, 2008, Ramon Tulfo wrote that the shame that the Court of Appeals has brought upon itself as a result of the Government Service Insurance System vs Meralco controversy was the collective fault of all its members.
He added that all the CA justices, even the clean and honest ones, know who their corrupt colleagues are, but they kept quiet because they didn’t want to rock the boat, so to speak. It took Sabio, who has a not-so-good reputation among his peers, to expose the corruption at the appellate court.
However, he admitted that, to be fair, CA justices who are honest outnumber the corrupt ones. But their silence taints them as well because it means they condone the acts of the corrupt ones, he stated. The honor code at the Philippine Military Academy (PMA), the country’s premier military school, should be the guiding principle in the judiciary: A cadet who cheats and one who does not report a classmate who cheats are both dishonest. Both are pressured to resign by the entire corps of cadets. He asks: Don’t judges and justices have an honor code? If they have, how come many of our judges and justices at the Court of Appeals are corrupt?
Worse, he stated, the Court of Appeals is what it is because it’s a dumping ground for bootlickers, crowd-pleasers, or political allies of this administration and the previous ones. You don’t have to be a brilliant lawyer to be appointed magistrate of the country’s second highest court. If you’re a judge and are salivating over a seat in the appellate court, all you have to do is get noticed by the public or Malacañang. If a case catches the public eye, decide it not on its merits but to please the public that cries for the blood of the accused, he lamented.
In her column for September 11, 2008, discussing how interwoven are the political and financial influences that manipulate the Judiciary, Belinda Olivares-Cunanan stated that the case against PCCG Chair Camilo Sabio (for calling up his justice-brother to intercede in the GSIS case) is typical in our Filipino setting, where ethics and personal relations almost always blur. She asks: In fact, how many of the retired justices who investigated the controversy—and even of the Supreme Court justices—never got such calls? (Very true, indeed). Camilo’s case was referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant for action, but out of “delicadeza” [sense of propriety] he should have resigned when his intercession was revealed by his brother, she added. Also, she asked why First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo’s lawyer Jess Santos was spared by the Court, which totally ignored Camilo’s testimony that it was Santos who asked him to call his brother on GSIS’ behalf.
The public have pestered the dailies with their own views on the corruption and lack of independence of the Judiciary.
For instance, in a letter to the editor of the Inquirer (09/10/2008), BERTOLDO ANONAS, of La Paz, Iloilo City, posited: “The malady has been around for a long time, according to Inquirer columnist Ramon Tulfo. Lawyers talk discreetly about the problem and, sad to say, a blatantly unjust decision does not cause surprise anymore. It is coffee-shop and beer-table talk—not only about Court of Appeals justices but also about judges in courts, low and high, and how some law offices have a lucrative practice at every level, with “runners” in residence. It is no longer a shame to lose before some judges, nor an honor to win.”
The executive and the legislative departments wash their hands, throwing the burden of solving this serious problem to the Supreme Court. They have forgotten that they are part of the process that perpetuates the irregularity: the president, by manipulating the power to appoint; and the legislators, by sponsoring the appointment of misfits to the judiciary, he added.
He blames the weak, if not corrupt, manner of judicial selection by the Judicial and Bar Council and the Office of the President: “And what about that constitutional body, the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC)? Is not the “incident” at the Court of Appeals a sign of its failure to fulfill its mission? On the other hand, is the JBC not part of the ineffective and weak system which has made it possible?... Should not civil society have a say, through a system of “retention election” for incumbent judges—a system, under which they may be voted out of office?”
In his letter to the editor entitled “Stop Politicizing Courts” (Inquirer, 09/12/2008), STEPHEN L. MONSANT urged: “Remove from the president the power to appoint members of the judiciary. Just as the president alone appoints members of the executive department, so should the Supreme Court alone appoint members of the judicial department.”
Why? He takes note of the aforecited CA scandal: “The recent bribery scandal in the Court of Appeals proves my point once again. Justice Jose Sabio Jr. is being maligned needlessly as aspiring for a spot in the Supreme Court. Which supposedly explains his predilections toward the Government Service Insurance System-cum-Malacañang in its court battle against Manila Electric Co. Given the lamentable reality in this country where the president alone determines who is fit to sit in the judicial branch of the government, credence is being given to the insinuation that Justice Sabio is merely trying to ingratiate himself to Winston Garcia of the Government Service Insurance System and to his patron in Malacañang.”
He ends with dismay: “Every trial judge’s dream is to be promoted to the Court of Appeals, and every Court of Appeals justice’s, to the Supreme Court. Only the president, the biggest political animal in this country, appoints them. Can the fruits fall far away from the tree that bears them?”
Where are we headed? The siege of the Philippine Judiciary continues.
