Stability in the Supreme Court
Published Sep 5, 2018 11:44 am
GOVERNANCE MATTERS
By JEJOMAR C. BINAY
Former Vice President
Jejomar C. Binay
Former Vice President The appointment of former Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro as chief justice of the Supreme Court has had its fair share of detractors. This is to be expected, owing to the controversy that surrounded the departure of Lourdes Sereno. The high court ruled that her appointment by the previous administration was invalid from the start. The detractors, however, had little to say or chose to ignore the warm welcome accorded De Castro on her first day of work by her fellow magistrates and the employees of the Supreme Court. You cannot ignore the genuine smiles and the sunny disposition of all those present. A return to collegiality was how the chief justice, in her characteristic low-key demeanor, defined her vision for the high court. She is also determined to introduce reforms in the administration of justice. De Castro is the most senior among the magistrates. To most observers, her appointment corrected the source of discord that attended the ill-fated tenure of Sereno. Yet the chief justice also stands by a sterling record spanning 45 years, a career which started at the Department of Justice (DOJ) as a humble clerk, to the Sandiganbayan, and now, as primus inter pares of the Supreme Court. The circumstances that surrounded the removal of Sereno should, once and for all, serve as a stark reminder of the destabilizing effect of dispensing with institutional traditions – primarily the rule on seniority – in the name of politics. By now we are all familiar with the back story. Following the impeachment in 2012 of Chief Justice Renato Corona – in itself an exercise in executive arrogance and overreach – the former president ignored seniority and appointed Sereno, one of the most junior justices. What followed was a regime of discord and disquiet in the august halls of Padre Faura, fodder for boardroom and cocktail party talk among lawyers, court insiders, and politicians. It would not take long before media started reporting on the conflict within the court. Insiders spoke of the supposed high-handed demeanor and violations of the collegiality rule committed by Sereno, which did not sit well with the more senior justices, among them De Castro. Known for her professionalism and calm countenance, the low-key justice surprised many when she minced no words in her speech before the country’s new lawyers, imploring them to shun politics as a shortcut to successful careers. Patronage exacts a price on those who thrive on it, she emphasized. “When they attain a position of authority without real effort, they tend to be blinded by power and intoxicated by the perks and privileges attached to the position,” she said. She added, rather ominously, “You will see it many times in your career that those who rise too fast often fall just as quickly.” The unseating of Sereno is unprecedented in the history of the court and our country. But allow me to reiterate that the conflict within the court – and its highly-contentious resolution – began when the previous president abused his power and prerogative by ignoring seniority. Under our Constitution, the President selects the members of the judiciary, including the chief justice, from a list submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). The JBC is an independent body created for the purpose of isolating judicial appointments from politics and politicians. That is an ideal situation. But we do not live in an ideal world. Since our political culture is anchored on having the right connections, anyone aspiring for a seat in the judiciary is expected to build connections over time, hoping that these connections would come in handy once a vacancy becomes available. The role of the JBC is to recommend. The final choice belongs to the President. And his choice – more often influenced by politics – leaves far-reaching imprints on our laws, mores, and society that outlive the term of the appointing power. In the case of the previous occupant of the chief justice position, her choice shook the very foundations of the institution. Her removal opened yet another front for critics of the administration. I consider De Castro, being a senior justice, a stabilizing force. Her academic credentials are beyond reproach. Her long experience as a member of the bench has given her practical learnings on what ails the delivery of justice, and will surely inform her drive to institute long-needed reforms in the judiciary. The appointment of De Castro augurs well for the judiciary but she is due for retirement soon. Will the tradition of seniority be upheld? The next choice of chief justice bears watching. [email protected]
Jejomar C. BinayFormer Vice President The appointment of former Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro as chief justice of the Supreme Court has had its fair share of detractors. This is to be expected, owing to the controversy that surrounded the departure of Lourdes Sereno. The high court ruled that her appointment by the previous administration was invalid from the start. The detractors, however, had little to say or chose to ignore the warm welcome accorded De Castro on her first day of work by her fellow magistrates and the employees of the Supreme Court. You cannot ignore the genuine smiles and the sunny disposition of all those present. A return to collegiality was how the chief justice, in her characteristic low-key demeanor, defined her vision for the high court. She is also determined to introduce reforms in the administration of justice. De Castro is the most senior among the magistrates. To most observers, her appointment corrected the source of discord that attended the ill-fated tenure of Sereno. Yet the chief justice also stands by a sterling record spanning 45 years, a career which started at the Department of Justice (DOJ) as a humble clerk, to the Sandiganbayan, and now, as primus inter pares of the Supreme Court. The circumstances that surrounded the removal of Sereno should, once and for all, serve as a stark reminder of the destabilizing effect of dispensing with institutional traditions – primarily the rule on seniority – in the name of politics. By now we are all familiar with the back story. Following the impeachment in 2012 of Chief Justice Renato Corona – in itself an exercise in executive arrogance and overreach – the former president ignored seniority and appointed Sereno, one of the most junior justices. What followed was a regime of discord and disquiet in the august halls of Padre Faura, fodder for boardroom and cocktail party talk among lawyers, court insiders, and politicians. It would not take long before media started reporting on the conflict within the court. Insiders spoke of the supposed high-handed demeanor and violations of the collegiality rule committed by Sereno, which did not sit well with the more senior justices, among them De Castro. Known for her professionalism and calm countenance, the low-key justice surprised many when she minced no words in her speech before the country’s new lawyers, imploring them to shun politics as a shortcut to successful careers. Patronage exacts a price on those who thrive on it, she emphasized. “When they attain a position of authority without real effort, they tend to be blinded by power and intoxicated by the perks and privileges attached to the position,” she said. She added, rather ominously, “You will see it many times in your career that those who rise too fast often fall just as quickly.” The unseating of Sereno is unprecedented in the history of the court and our country. But allow me to reiterate that the conflict within the court – and its highly-contentious resolution – began when the previous president abused his power and prerogative by ignoring seniority. Under our Constitution, the President selects the members of the judiciary, including the chief justice, from a list submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). The JBC is an independent body created for the purpose of isolating judicial appointments from politics and politicians. That is an ideal situation. But we do not live in an ideal world. Since our political culture is anchored on having the right connections, anyone aspiring for a seat in the judiciary is expected to build connections over time, hoping that these connections would come in handy once a vacancy becomes available. The role of the JBC is to recommend. The final choice belongs to the President. And his choice – more often influenced by politics – leaves far-reaching imprints on our laws, mores, and society that outlive the term of the appointing power. In the case of the previous occupant of the chief justice position, her choice shook the very foundations of the institution. Her removal opened yet another front for critics of the administration. I consider De Castro, being a senior justice, a stabilizing force. Her academic credentials are beyond reproach. Her long experience as a member of the bench has given her practical learnings on what ails the delivery of justice, and will surely inform her drive to institute long-needed reforms in the judiciary. The appointment of De Castro augurs well for the judiciary but she is due for retirement soon. Will the tradition of seniority be upheld? The next choice of chief justice bears watching. [email protected]