The reported early retirement plan of Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta created a ripple of disbelief not only in the judicial circles but also in the public at large. This follows the early retirement of Associate Justice Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla last month due to her reported physical disability. She was appointed to the highest court in July this year but Justice Baltazar-Padilla had reportedly gone on leave by the end of August 2020. This calls for a more rigorous scrutiny of the health of the applicant to the SC by our Judicial and Bar Council. If a rigid physical examination is required of every applicant to any civil service position, candidates to the SC should undergo thorough medical examination by a government hospital.
The position of a Chief Justice is the pinnacle of every lawyer’s dream and giving it up after a lifetime’s labor to achieve it both at the bar and the bench is almost unheard of. But that is what CJ Peralta has just announced to his colleagues at the Highest Court. In his letter sent to his fellow magistrates last Tuesday, he informed them of his decision to cut short his term effective March 27 next year when he reaches his 69th birthday. Seventy years old is the mandatory retirement age for members of the judiciary. Under Section 1, Article VIII of the Philippine Constitution, “the members of the Supreme court… shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office.” This provision ensures the independence of judges and guarantees them the security of tenure until their mandatory retirement. They may be ousted from their position on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. The removal of CJ Ma. Lourdes Sereno on a quo warranto petition en banc is the first case of a constitutional officer ever removed from office without an impeachment trial. Moreover, the fact that justices are not elected and do not have to campaign for office insulates them from partisan politics and other external forces. It spares them from any undue influence or interference so that they can only apply the rule of law in dispensing justice without fear or favor. It protects their autonomy, which is the bedrock of our justice system.
The Peralta SC faces landmark cases where its decisions will have a far-reaching impact on our people. One of them is the question of the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, which is the subject of more than 3-dozen petitions. This is one case where the firm leadership and moral courage of the CJ will be acutely needed.
The SC is the highest court of our land. It is the so-called arbiter of last resort, that’s why it’s called the Supreme Court. Its decision is final and binds everyone and its rulings and decisions are inappealable to any higher authority. Given their critical task, in the US, justices serve until their death, voluntary retirement or conviction by the Senate in an impeachment proceedings but this is not shared even by the current CJ of the US SC, CJ John Roberts. He has stated that “setting a term… would ensure that federal judges would not lose all touch with reality through decades of ivory tower existence. It would also provide a more regular and greater degree of turnover among the judges.” It cannot be denied that both physical and mental capacity diminish with age. But as the late Justice Isagani A. Cruz had aptly observed when he opposed a proposal to reduce the retirement age of judges to 65, “like excellent wine, judges mellow with age” and he pointed to US SC justices Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter and John Marshall who all served well beyond their 80th years.
The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in office at 87, once said: “As long as I can do the job full steam I’ll stay, I think I’ll recognize when the time comes that I can’t any longer.” The maximum age term for sitting justices is designed to prevent mental decrepitude to set in and affects the work of a magistrate. Men in robes should have full command of their faculties since our very life, fortune and honor depend on them.
Given the advances in science and medicine, 69 is still a relatively young age for one at the peak of his mental power to leave his office. From where I sit and observing him from afar, CJ Peralta is far from being spent, wasted, or to borrow President Duterte’s favorite word, inutile. We are not aware that the good CJ is suffering from any sickness or infirmity, which would seriously hamper him from discharging his official duties. Neither is he under any risk of impeachment, or even a quo warranto proceeding, which would threaten his security of tenure. One who is not incapacitated, physical or mental, to serve his country deprives his people the gift of his experience and wisdom. We don’t know the reason for his opting to retire early, as the CJ has not disclosed it. We trust, however, that when he does, he would give us one that won’t raise more questions than answers. I am saying this because I’ve the highest respect for the CJ whose illustrious career I have followed since he started as a young prosecutor in the government, until his meteoric rise to the position of Chief Justice of our SC. The question everyone is asking is: why would the CJ step down before he completes his term? Can he not handle the grave responsibility of his office? Is he under severe and undue pressure from anyone? I refuse to speculate as I respect the guy a lot, but anyone’s guess is as good as mine.