The appointment of the members of the Supreme Court is one of the most important and sensitive functions of the President. No body of men, though unelected by the people, wields greater power and influence than the 15-man tribunal on the life, property and liberty of an individual in our society. The SC is the highest court of the land and is regarded as the “court of last resort.” In the exercise of judicial power, its decision is final and unappealable.
Section 7 of the Constitution prescribes the qualifications of a member of the SC. “No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court must be at least 40 years of age, and must have been for 15 years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.” A Judicial and Bar Council is created under the Constitution under the supervision of the SC to recommend to the President appointees to the Judiciary. The JBC interviews and screens the candidate for appointment to the SC. This is one of the judicial reforms introduced under the new Constitution to insulate the judiciary from political pressure. The President shall then appoint the members of the SC from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the JBC for every vacancy. No confirmation from the Commission on Appointment is required for such an appointment although the appointment to the JBC itself by the President requires the consent of the Commission on Appointment.
The Judiciary holds “neither purse nor sword” but no one can deny that democracy endures and people’s rights and liberties persist because of the vigor and vigilance of the courts. Without an independent judiciary, a spineless member of the Supreme Court toadies up to political power and subservience becomes his refuge. Needless to mention, a vibrant and free society needs an assertive and activist Court that decides justiciable cases brought before it without fear or favor. On the other hand, a timid judiciary will refrain from engaging into the realm of political issues that may bring it into conflict with the executive or legislative department. Thus, its judicial power, including the sacrosanct power of judicial review, is compromised to the great prejudice of society. There is no greater disservice to the people than this. As prescribed under Sec. 6, para. 3 of the Constitution, “(A) member of the Judiciary must be a person of competence, integrity, probity and independence.” Tough requirements which when strictly observed and implemented, as they should be, would be equivalent to finding the proverbial needle in the haystack. But that’s why the framers of the Constitution have seen it prudent to create the Judicial and Bar Council, a concoction of the 1973 Constitution.
After my retirement, I have made it a point to watch or listen to the proceedings of the JBC as they interview the nominees to the SC. Not only because I personally know some of the JBC members and have followed their professional careers both in the bar and the bench. When I’m impressed by a nominee, both in the depth and quality of his/her answers, as well as his/her demeanor, I text the aspirant and express to him/her my support and my wish that he/she gets appointed by the President. Sometimes, I even text the JBC members to provide them my feedback since some of them circulate a message requesting for the public’s reaction. To be fair, based on my observation, the conduct of the interview by the JBC is balanced and objective. I wish, however, that the field of aspirants is wider and has more depth. I want to see more nominees who possess academic excellence and erudition, equipped with judicial temperament and philosophy, gifted with a moral fiber and independence to discharge his/her task competently and fearlessly. Candidates who will perform their job with a great sense of responsibility and accountability to the people, and not to their political patron.
Recently, and to my surprise, I got a text from a leading member of the JBC, who said: “Good day your honors. The quality of applicants, shortlisted nominees, and presidential appointees to the SC lately has so much to be desired in terms of specialized qualitative work outputs, analytical inputs in court deliberation and specialized expertise in Public Law, International Law, and other special laws. There is now need to diversify membership in the SC. May I respectfully suggest that the likes of SOJ Guevarra, COA Chair Aguinaldo, and other legal scholars from the government or private sector be endorsed/recommended to apply. Deadline of application/recommendation is May 10, 2021 to fill up the vacancy of Associate Justice Gesmundo. Thank you.” Many court observers share this view from a member of the JBC. I hope that his call will be heeded by deserving members of the bar and the bench who want to serve our highest tribunal. We direly need people of their caliber and credentials to reinvigorate our SC. These are perilous times and our people need the assurance that we shall have an SC that will safeguard their lives and liberties.
Any appointment to the SC has a huge consequence to all of us. I do not want to believe that only a nominee who shall embrace a pro-administration line shall get a slot in the SC. The SC is replete with narratives where a seemingly partisan appointee of the President has broken ranks and pursued a judicial philosophy that is anathema to the appointing power. Justices Teehankee, Muñoz-Palma and Abad Santos are good examples of this species. There will be others who will be undaunted and be equal to this great task. Let’s hope that they will take up the challenge.