A non-lawyer's view of the Chief Justice appointment

MANILA, Philippines - I have observed in many instances that people create their own problem.

Take this raging issue about the appointment of the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. For us non-lawyers, this seems uncomplicated and is actually a simple matter. We just need to refer to the Constitution which prescribes by whom and when a Chief Justice should be appointed.

The problem arose when people, particularly politicians and lawyers, started telling President Arroyo what and how to do her work as if they know better. Worse, there are contrasting views — one that admonishes President Arroyo that she can not appoint the next Chief Justice and the other which advises her that it’s actually her duty to appoint the same.

It is clear at this point that one side is against President Arroyo while the other is supporting her.

What exacerbated the situation was when Senior Associate Justice Carpio, one of the possible nominees, came out with a statement that he would not accept said appointment (should it happen) if it comes from President Arroyo. By this statement he made himself an active part of the issue rather than being what was expected of a magistrate, befitting the dignity of one being considered to be the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The situation degenerated into opposing sides composed of those who are advocating that the next Chief Justice should be appointed by President Arroyo and are against the appointment of Justice Carpio; and those advocating that the next Chief Justice should be appointed by the successor of President Arroyo and are in favor of the appointment of Justice Carpio.

In short it is now apparent among politicians and lawyers who are actually for or against Justice Carpio. Thus, it can be concluded that those nine Associate Justices are against him and only one is supporting Justice Carpio.

Amidst this controversy, a non-lawyer like me is totally confused on what would be really good for our country. Maybe, after all these debates and after reading Marites Vitug’s “Shadow of Doubt”, it would be best for our country to have, instead, a young and scholastic lawyer who is not tainted with any scandal; one who is competent; and one who has the ascendancy to bring back the credibility and dignity of the Philippine Supreme Court to occupy this coveted position. The ideal candidate would have to be objective and impartial so that he would carry out his duties with the highest degree of professionalism and without biases — the likes of PECABAR’s Atty. Jess Manalastas, Philippine STAR columnist Atty. Juan Andres Bautista or election law expert Atty. Romy Macalintal.

Maybe we can learn something from the case of Chief Justice Teehankee, the Great Dissenter during the Martial Law years. Like all lawyers, he dreamed of being appointed to the Supreme Court while still in practice, and hoped to be the Chief Justice when he was already Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

But Justice Teehankee consistently upheld the rule of law in all his dissenting opinions. No one could force or influence him into doing otherwise.

There were three significant instances when the character and behavior of Justice Teehankee was put to test during his stint in the Supreme Court. The first was during the Ericta scandal where he was not even remotely involved in said scandal. But it was an opportunity for the appointing power and those inconvenienced by his consistent dissenting opinions to remove him from the Supreme Court.

All the Supreme Court Justices were asked to resign and only those not involved in the case were to be reappointed. However, during this time, the issue on his citizenship was raised which directly threatened his appointment. Honorable man that he was, Justice Teehankee, in a meeting in Malacañang together with the other Supreme Court Justices, submitted his proof of qualification as natural born citizen and left Malacañang quietly, leaving his fate to those he left behind and trusted that his integrity would win him his honor and rightful position. Indeed, he was reappointed.

The second and third trials where when, as the most Senior Associate Justice and Acting Chief Justice, he was bypassed by the appointment of Justice Felix Makasiar and later by Justice Ramon Aquino to the elusive Chief Justice seat.

In all three occasions, Justice Teehankee kept his silence and never questioned the decision of those in authority. By so doing, he preserved with its glory the judicial dignity reserved only for those who sit in the highest court of the land.

The climax of his career in the Supreme Court happened when the position of Chief Justice sought him when the administration of President Cory Aquino offered him the most coveted position without him lobbying for it. The Chief Justice position was literally brought to his doorstep when an emissary from the office of President Aquino went to his house to offer him said position.

One can ask the question who, in the present time, can measure up to the behavior and character of Justice Teehankee?

In one of the many speaking engagements that he had attended, Justice Teehankee was introduced through a most appropriate quotation from Samuel Johnson which goes “Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful. But once in a while, a rare man comes along whose cup runneth over with knowledge and integrity.” Such was Justice Teehankee.

 The Chief Justice position is so crucial to our country’s progress and stability that utmost care and consideration should be exercised and observed every step of the way. But on top of it all, the man to be seated in one of the highest positions in our country should possess honor, dignity over and above his mastery of law.