The unprecedented removal of Chief Justice Renato Corona has generated so much interest in the search for the next Chief Justice. There were 63 potential candidates to the position. The number was finally trimmed down to 20, all of whom were subjected to public interview by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).
The JBC completed the interviews on July 27 and it will have completed its constitutional task when it submits a short list of at least three nominees to the President of the Philippines as required by the Constitution.
The focus of interest will then shift to President Aquino, who will ultimately choose and appoint the next Chief Justice of the country. The constitutional deadline for the appointment of the new Chief Justice is August 27.
Deplorable condition of the Philippine courts
In selecting the next Chief Justice, President Aquino is again confronted by his quest for the “tuwid na daan” even in the Philippine judicial system, exemplified by the Supreme Court.
The 2011 Global Competitiveness Report published by the World Economic Forum lists the Philippine judiciary as the least independent among Asean countries, scoring significantly lower than Cambodia’s. The Philippines also ranked lowest in terms of efficiency of the legal framework in settling disputes and in challenging regulations. Of these three levels, in fact, the Philippines is the only Asean country to have received a rating below 3 (the highest is 7).
These ratings indicate the perception that the Philippine judiciary is highly vulnerable to external pressure and influence, and the legal system is inefficient in resolving disputes relating to rules and regulations, already rated as the most burdensome in the Asean.
While the Philippine judicial system received improved rating beginning 2010, the fact remains that the Philippine courts received lower ratings than our Asean neighbors—in terms of judicial independence and efficiency.
Truly, President Aquino has a tremendous burden on his shoulders. In his quest for the “tuwid na daan,” he must select and appoint the next Chief Justice who does not only possess the basic requirements of competence, integrity, probity and independence required by the Constitution; but, more importantly, a Chief Justice who can truly restore the people’s faith in the judicial system of the country.
Exemplary leader
John Roberts, the present chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, offers us some lessons on the chief justice’s role in steering the judiciary.
When the Affordable Care Act (popularly known as Obamacare Act) was challenged before the US Supreme Court for allegedly being violative of the US constitution’s commerce clause, Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority (all regarded as liberals) even when he was traditionally regarded as a conservative.
In so voting, he was quoted to have said that he was building consensus among members of the court who were seemingly on opposite sides of the political spectrum, an action that he deemed, as chief justice, was not his most powerful role but was his only role.
Chief Justice Roberts rose above himself and kept the court intact, proving his earlier sentiment that the US Supreme Court shall not serve as another battleground for the political branches of government. Noteworthy is that Chief Justice Roberts voted to uphold the Obamacare Act even as President Obama voted against his confirmation while he was senator of the United States.
The needs of the country
The problems in the judiciary are gargantuan—ranging from antiquated court procedures, extremely low compensation for court personnel, low budget, grossly inadequate number of operating courts to corruption and incompetence, vicious delay in the disposition of cases, low morale and highly negative public perception.
We need a Chief Justice who can lead the court first to look toward itself and address issues from within—a person who will not only appreciate the dynamics of the court but will be able to build consensus among the complex personalities in the court.
We need a Chief Justice who has the administrative and managerial skills to preside over a complicated and highly bureaucratic judicial system. The new Chief Justice must have the unique ability to make the whole court system work as one unit toward the attainment of a common goal.
We need a Chief Justice who is not only a steward of judicial reform, but more importantly, a shepherd who will lead his flock to bring about a sea of change upon itself as to regain the respect and confidence of the people. The next Chief Justice, in essence, should not be withdrawn and just stand idly by. He must be a sincere and enthusiastic leader always on the forefront, passionately rallying his troops every step of the way to prove to the people that the judiciary deserves their trust.
We need a Chief Justice who is an innovator and a visionary—someone who will unify the Philippine courts through leadership and example, and usher in a new era of a competent and independent judicial system.
We need a Chief Justice who will set an example for other magistrates to emulate and will inspire confidence in our justices, judges and other court personnel.
We need a Chief Justice who truly understands the implications of the court’s decisions on the country’s quest to be a competitive investment destination as a means of liberating our people from the bondage of poverty.
We need a Chief Justice who is able to rise above political considerations and be beholden only to the Constitution and the majesty of the law, always mindful that law and order should prevail at all times.
We need a Chief Justice who can work with the other branches of government to bring about genuine judicial reform for the country while maintaining judicial independence and guarding it against the pull of political tendencies.
Transformational leader
In short, what the country needs as new Chief Justice is a transformational leader—someone who has a firm grip of the realities on the ground and a clear vision for the judiciary, “a clear view of the future,” so to speak. He must have the gift to influence and inspire every member of the judiciary with that vision. He must have the passion for his work. He must have the ability to make the rest of his troops feel recharged and energized in the discharge of their everyday duties. He must be willing to play central role in the battlefield, taking every opportunity to demonstrate to his flock that he truly cares for them and the institution that they work for. He must have the talent to make people move forward especially through darker times and sincerely make them feel—every inch of the way—that his success is their success.
The role of the JBC
The public interviews conducted gave the JBC and the Filipino people a glimpse of the candidates’ personalities and their individual views on judicial reform and on how best to achieve it.
From the present list of 20 nominees, it is hoped that the short list will finally be limited to only those who can carry out the above responsibilities of a Chief Justice.
The JBC plays an indispensable role in the selection of the Chief Justice, far beyond screening nominees and making a short list. It must take the first step in ensuring that the nominees themselves understand and fully accept the responsibilities and consequences of the office of the chief magistrate. In addition, the JBC must narrow the “window of error” by allowing only those whose qualifications are beyond reproach to come one step closer to the office of the Chief Justice.
In short, the JBC must nominate only the most qualified. And in turn, President Aquino must choose that nominee who not only is the best among his or her peers, but can also bring out the best in our judiciary.
The search for the next Chief Justice comes at the most opportune time. Coming from the historic impeachment that marred the judiciary and put to test the delicate balance of power in our constitutional system of government, we need to be assured that our Supreme Court can truly serve as the last bulwark of our democracy.
Real reform in the judiciary is not only anticipated; it is essential to our survival as a democratic nation.
(The author is the comanaging partner of Angara Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices and a law professor in Ateneo Law School. He may be contacted through francis.ed.lim@gmail.com.)