Manila, Philippines - Acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio faced the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) yesterday to prove himself worthy of the top Supreme Court (SC) post, for which he was deemed bypassed in 2010.
Carpio and Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro were automatically nominated for the post for their seniority in the SC.
Two other candidates grilled by the JBC on the third day of oral interviews were University of the East law dean Amado Valdez and former Ateneo law dean Cesar Villanueva.
Carpio denied that he had conspired with the Palace in ousting former chief justice Renato Corona, who had been appointed by the outgoing administration in May 2010.
“I was accused of scheming with President Aquino and Mar Roxas, but I have not talked to them,” he said when asked by JBC member and Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas about the issue.
“You would know that because I never talked to you. How can I convince (188) congressmen to sign the impeachment complaint?” Carpio added, eliciting laughter from spectators.
Tupas, who served as lead prosecutor during the trial, asked Carpio what he would have done if he were in Corona’s shoes.
“If I misdeclared my SALN (statement of assets, liabilities and net worth) to that extent, then I would have resigned right away,” Carpio said. “I will not misdeclare my SALN.”
Earlier this year, Carpio had made public summary of his SALN for 2010 showing a net worth of P47, 269,928.
The 62-year-old magistrate believes impeachment was directed only at Corona and did not necessarily affect the relation of the judiciary with the executive and legislative branches.
“You have impeached the chief justice but it does not mean you have impeached the entire court, there is no guilt by association,” he pointed out.
“But I don’t deny that it has brought out problems about the judiciary, and we have to address them. The Corona trial brought the judiciary’s problems to the fore,” he lamented.
Responding to a question sent via Twitter on whether he could still be friends with Corona, he replied: “Why not? We can always forget and forgive.”
The most senior justice was also asked about his association with the law firm he founded and his law fraternity and said that he has consistently inhibited from all cases handled by the Villaraza Cruz Marcelo & Angangco (CVC Law), known in the legal circle as “The Firm.”
Carpio also said that he voted for the dismissal of a fraternity brother in UP Sigma Rho as justice of the Court of Appeals.
When asked how he exhibited his independence, Carpio cited that he voted against the people’s initiative to amend the 1987 Constitution in 2006 that was supported by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who appointed him to the SC in October 2001.
Another JBC member, lawyer Jose Mejia from the academe, asked him to answer the opposition filed against him by the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, saying he would not be fit for the job because he is part of the “old boys’ club” in the high court.
“The decisions of the court will show that we are not a club. We have heated discussions. We have strongly worded dissents against each other. I don’t see how we can be an old boys’ club. During decisions, we fight very hard for our position,” he explained.
“If we look friendly, it is because we have no choice. Your ally today in the case could be your enemy tomorrow. You have to be civil to each other. There are no permanent enemies, friends in court,” he clarified.
As to the issue of appointing an insider versus an outsider, Carpio likened the judiciary to the military hierarchy and said that appointing an outsider could demoralize members of the court.
“I will not deny that (appointing an outsider) will be bad for the morale (of the insiders),” he admitted.
Still, he said the President has the prerogative to choose who he sees most fit for the job as vested upon him by the Constitution.
Carpio revealed that among the reforms he started was the centralization of payment of utilities of courts nationwide.
He has also instructed the Office of the Court Administrator to require courts to deposit court fee collections in checks and cash to local Landbank branches to prevent revenue loss.
If given the chance to continue with his post on a permanent capacity, he said he plans to further address the clogged dockets of the high court by training mediators and judges and simplifying rules in hearing and resolving cases.
“Through the simplified rules, we minimized motions to postpone and other dilatory tactics. It is time we expand it to all civil cases,” he proposed.
He also would like to develop computer literacy of all judges and ensure connectivity in all courts nationwide. This, he said, would allow judges to access the e-library and the courts to upload and monitor reports and pending cases at the case management system, thus enabling all cases to be resolved within one year.
Such system reflects Carpio’s vision of a “fair, honest and efficient” judiciary.
If Carpio believes measures have already been put in place to address the clogged dockets, Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro believes there is need to do more.
The third most senior justice of the high court, De Castro said she plans to prioritize improvement of case adjudication if appointed chief justice.
“I am committed to pursue reforms in the judiciary including access to justice, enhancing institutional integrity,” vowed the 63-year-old magistrate who rose from the ranks and has been in the judiciary for 20 years.
Some of her proposals include face-to-face discussions with judges, court officials on the ground that will contribute in helping solve problems in the judiciary.
“The court administrator should spend time on the ground to know the problems of the court,” De Castro added.
She believes slow dispensation of justice was the primary reason why the people’s trust in the judiciary is low.
De Castro hopes to build a judiciary that is “independent, efficient, where integrity is upheld, where people have trust and confidence, where employees are models of exemplary behavior and decency.”
Valdez, the first to face the JBC yesterday, questioned the exorbitant legal fees collected from litigants and called them unconstitutional: “High court fees affect access to justice, which should be given more premium. That is the essence of our democratic system.”