The three branches of government are equal and similarly independent. This is how the Constitution guarantees checks and balances in the system. This is how a government of one is prevented, and how a healthy exchange of varying, if not diverse, opinions are encouraged. Excesses are capped, the best arguments win, and criticism is given and taken constructively to help each department do its job well.
All these sentences, however, are in the realm of the ideal.
In real-life politics, government officials are keen on appointing like minds and allies to work with them. This is not altogether illogical: We normally work best with people we trust and have a history with. Because we share the same vision and agree on methods, we get rid of resistance and opposition and thus get things done faster.
But that is also where the danger lies.
To be fair, the predisposition for appointing only officials who hold back opposite views and outright criticism is not unique to this President. Predecessors have done the same, and have exhibited a low tolerance for those who do not think as they do. Remember how former President Benigno Aquino III castigated the media who do not report favorably on him or sidelined other elected officials who did not sport the same affiliations as he did.
In this administration, we have seen how loyalty is rewarded and how articulating opinion arrived at independently can cause people their jobs, even their good name.
This comes to mind as President Duterte prepares to choose from the Supreme Court justices short-listed by the Judicial and Bar Council. The next Chief Justice is expected to be named in the next few weeks.
The leading candidate is acting Supreme Court Chief Justice Antonio Carpio, the most senior among the magistrates, who has been bypassed more than once.
The last time he was considered for the post, Carpio declined his nomination. He had just voted against the quo warranto petition that eventually ousted then-Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, and he said he did not want to benefit from a decision to which he disagreed.
To say that he and the President are not on the same page in a fundamental national issue would be an understatement. Carpio is known for his judicial activism in asserting our claim in the South China Sea, while the President has bent over backward to avoid offending Beijing.
There are assurances, of course, from the presidential spokesman that this will not prevent the President from acknowledging the fact that Carpio deserves the post. Unfortunately, we have trouble taking the spokesman’s words seriously.
If at all, there must be a distinction between criticism for politics’ sake, and substantive criticism. One creates noise and discord; the other elevates the discourse. We hope the President will be able to tell the difference.