Two cases pending before the Supreme Court recently spawned calls for Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno to inhibit herself from their deliberation for reasons relating to her husband’s past business activities.
Redmont Consolidated Mines Corp. wants Sereno to stay clear of the appeal from a Court of Appeals decision in its favor that stopped three mining companies from operating in the country for violation of foreign ownership rules.
According to Redmont, the interests of these companies have been acquired by DMCI Mining Corp., an affiliate company of DMCI Group where Sereno’s husband, Mario Jose, once worked as corporate planning officer.
A similar plea was made in the case filed by the Knights of Rizal against DMCI Homes for constructing a 46-story condominium building, named Torre de Manila, behind the Jose Rizal monument.
The petitioners claim the construction defaced the visual corridors of the monument in violation of the laws mandating the protection and preservation of the national shrine.
In both instances, the request for inhibition rests on the argument that Sereno may, on account of her husband’s previous ties with DMCI, be unable to make a just and objective judgment on the cases.
To date, there is no word yet on whether Sereno has voluntarily recused herself from those cases or the tribunal has ordered her to do so.
Decision
The parties in a case cannot be faulted if, for reasons of perceived or possible bias or conflict of interest by the judge or justice concerned, they ask the latter not to participate in its resolution.
True justice demands that court decisions should not only be fair or consistent with the law, but should also be looked at as having been rendered without bias for or against any of the litigants.
The same principle applies to administrative cases when the government performs its regulatory or supervisory functions.
Unless ordered by higher authority, it is up to the official concerned to decide whether or not to accede to the request for inhibition. It’s a conscience decision.
Government officials who, prior to their entry to the bureaucracy, worked in the private sector can relate to the ground cited by those who’ve asked Sereno to inhibit herself from the deliberation on their cases.
It is not uncommon for lawyers handling significant administrative or court cases to dig up the past business or professional record of the judge or government official hearing their case (or those of his spouse or close relatives) if they think he is likely to decide against their clients’ interests.
If they find anything that would link that person or his relatives to their opponent, no matter how remote, that information would be used as a ground to request his inhibition.
Justification
Pleas for inhibition of this nature rest on the assumption that, despite the termination of business or professional ties, the official concerned remains loyal or beholden to his former employer or colleagues.
It is immaterial if the relationship was short-lived, say, two years, or was severed at the official’s instance for personal advancement purposes, or was made under unpleasant circumstances.
The mere fact that the official once had ties, no matter how short or unproductive, to a party involved in a pending case is considered sufficient reason to ask that he refrain from getting involved, directly or indirectly, in the proceedings.
It was this mindset that prompted, some time ago, a lawyer to ask a Supreme Court justice to refrain from participating in the deliberations on a case involving a business conglomerate because he worked for it as legal assistant for four years some 30 years ago.
A similar request was made to the chair of a commission hearing a petition for adjustment of rates and charges whose husband was a management trainee of the company that filed the petition under consideration.
The lawyer was aware his move was baseless because he knew the training program was a prerequisite for graduation and it happened long before the husband met the chair of the commission.
Mercifully, both pleas for inhibition were turned down, otherwise it would have created bad precedents to our judicial and administrative procedures.
Criteria
While it is true that past business or professional ties may influence a government official’s action on a matter he is tasked to decide on, there are no parameters or benchmarks that can be used as reference to determine the validity of a request for inhibition based on that ground.
According to some court insiders, the unwritten cooling-off period that judges or justices observe in handling cases that have their former law offices or fellow practitioners acting as counsel of either party is 10 years.
Ahead of a request for inhibition or even if the parties do have any objection about their hearing the case despite the prior professional relationship, they voluntarily disqualify themselves from deliberations on the case if that period “requirement” is not met.
The more conservative judges or justices have adopted a total ban on their participation in cases that involve their erstwhile colleagues regardless of the intervening years.
If the same time prescription were applied to the companies that members of the judiciary or other government officials once worked for, the handling of judicial and administrative cases would be adversely affected.
The results would be disastrous if the exclusion is made to apply on account of the business or professional activities of the spouses, children or close relatives of the judges or government officials concerned.
The problem with requests for inhibition that are not carefully thought of is they unfairly put the affected parties in a bad light and unduly stain the credibility of the actions taken on the case that gave rise to the pleas.
For comments, please send your email to “rpalabrica@inquirer.com.ph.”