There are two important developments we must all watch out for if we care about the future of justice in the Philippines: the change of leadership in the Department of Justice and the quo warranto case against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno now pending in the Supreme Court.
First, the good news on the Department of Justice. The firing of Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre is most welcome. As President Rodrigo Duterte himself said, it is time to restore dignity to this very crucial department. Above all, it must veer away from being weaponized for political purposes—whether it’s the charges against Senator Leila de Lima, the pork barrel issue, the bad deal with Napoles, or indiscriminate charges in relation to the Dengvaxia controversy—and regain its probity, objectivity, and above all independence.
President Duterte has chosen the right person for this challenging tasks of rescuing the Department of Justice. Secretary Menardo Guevarra is the man for the job. Regardless of our political leanings, we should all welcome the appointment of this brilliant, principled, compassionate, and excellent lawyer to the DoJ. Those of us who knows Guevarra’s work will attest to his professionalism, objectivity, and integrity. His students at the Ateneo Law School, where I also teach, praise him for his goodness and kindness.
Secretary Guevarra of course has been appointed to a political position and I expect him to take into account the interests of his principal, the President, when such interests are aligned with the law. But I am confident he will always do the right thing.
Among others, I hope Secretary Guevarra will rev iew the charges against Senator De Lima. That prosecution is a train wreck and will surely result in acquittal. Let’s spare the senator, her family, and the country the agony of such a prosecution. To be fair, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, her family, and the country should have been spared of that same suffering.
I would also pay attention to the Dengvaxia cases that have been filed by the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption as that is what lawyers call a bazooka attack, charging everyone remotely connected to the issue and some without basis. One of those the VACC included in their complaint is Dr. Mario Villaverde, a Health undersecretary. I have known Mario for more than 25 years, having worked with him when I was an environment undersecretary in the 1990s and he was the environmental health division chief. I was so impressed with Mario’s competence and integrity then that, two decades later, I invited him to leave the DoH in 2010 where he had risen to the position of undersecretary to join me at the Ateneo School of Government where he became Associate Dean. He only returned to the DoH last year as a matter of duty and had absolutely nothing to do with Dengvaxia.
I hope also that Secretary Guevarra will review the list of persons included in the anti-terrorism case against the Communist Party of the Philippines. That list is a product of terrible military intelligence and unjustly maligns many good people. I will pay attention particularly to the inclusion of Ms. Vicky Tauli-Corpuz, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in that list. I have worked closely with Vicky, and her colleague in Tebtebba Foundation Joan Carling (who is also in the list), for more than 20 years in many international forums, especially on climate change, biological diversity, and human rights where we have represented and negotiated for the Philippines as bona fide members of the Philippine delegation. Although not government officials, Vicky and I have been trusted by successive Philippine governments, the Arroyo and Aquino administrations, to lead the negotiations in forests and climate change from 2009 to 2015. This is because of our seniority and because our officials know we are completely loyal to the country and obedient to whatever instructions were given us. The inclusion of Corpuz and Carling in the proscription list has been condemned internationally, and in the case of the former has serious diplomatic consequences.
Second, even more important than the Guevarra appointment, the quo warranto case against Chief Justice Sereno will determine the future of justice in this country.
Chief Justice Sereno is set to face her colleagues in the Supreme Court this Tuesday during the oral arguments on the petition to nullify her appointment as chief magistrate. For the first time in history, a sitting chief justice will argue her case as a respondent, not as a sitting judge, before her peers. She decided to abide by the order of the Court for her to “attend personally and answer questions from the Court” even as her camp insists that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the petition as in the Constitution she could be removed only through impeachment.
The question in everyone’s mind is—can the Court be depended on to pass judgment with impartiality and competence considering the perceived hostility and rumored squabbles which have been going on for years between Sereno and some of her colleagues? That there is bad blood among the members has been reinforced when some justices—Associate Justices Teresita de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Noel Tijam and Francis Jardeleza—testified against her before the House Committee on Justice. In seeking their inhibition, the Sereno camp argued that the five have shown “actual bias” against her and “cannot decide the quo warranto petition objectively and impartially.”
On a number of occasions, the Supreme Court, including in decisions penned by some of the Justices being asked to inhibit, has emphasized that any judicial decision should be based on the judge’s rational and logical assessment of the circumstances prevailing in the case before him. The requirement of “cold neutrality of an impartial judge,” is designed to preserve the integrity of the judiciary and more fundamentally, to gain and maintain the people’s faith in the institutions they have erected when they adopted our Constitution; that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice” is an imposition as the final judge of the conduct of public business, including trials, upon the courts of a high and uncompromising standard in the proper dispensation of justice.
The first paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court set specific grounds for inhibition of judges. Beyond these grounds, a judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons. It’s all a matter of conscience and sound discretion. That the appearance of propriety is as important as acting with propriety is essential in dispensing cases. That judges and justices must be above suspicion at all times—they must be like Caesar’s wife—is of utmost importance because the loss of confidence and trust in our courts by the public can have catastrophic impact in our justice system.
I have deep respect for all the members of the Supreme Court. As an officer of the court, I would never criticize the Chief Justice or any Associate Justice in a personal way. This for me is not a matter of ego or ruffled feathers. The Supreme Court, the institution that the justices represent, is larger than the individuals that compose it. The quo warranto decision, which could come soon, absolutely could change our constitutional system radically. The Corona impeachment was terrible and led to the opening of a Pandora’s Box that released destructive forces on the judiciary. This case could unleash even more dreadful consequences on the institution—on its stability, credibility, its inner harmony, and independence. That would be unfortunate for an institution which is essential to a functioning society. That would be a disaster for the future of justice in our republic.
Facebook: Antonio La Vina or tonylavs2 Twitter: tonylavs