When two very prominent justices – particularly with the ongoing trial in their court of ex-President Estrada for plunder and perjury – engage in an awful mudslinging contest in full public view, this can only erode confidence in our justice system. Since the general public already thinks ill of our justice set-up, the "word war" merely reinforced its cynicism and frustration.
What puzzles me is why the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) has remained silent on this controversial issue and other matters pertaining to the judiciary and the administration of justice.
Recently, an Ilocos Norte Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge was ambushed and killed. Evidently, the motive for the judge’s assassination was work-related. Did we get a peep out of the IBP, even if only to condemn the murder? Incidentally, the victim, like the current president of the IBP, was a University of the Philippines Law graduate. Perhaps he did not belong to the right fraternity and wasn’t a "brod"?
Then there’s the injudicious and unrestrained issuance of temporary restraining orders (TROs) by Regional Trial Courts which discourages not merely foreign investment but the expansion of local business. No sooner is a project initiated or an investment launched than one of the sore "losers" files a case and a judge happily freezes everything by issuing a TRO. If you’re a foreign investor, why risk your money in a country where it can be "frozen" for months and even years without earning you a single dollar in interest or profit? You would instead find yourself trapped in a terrible "loss" situation. So, foreign investors and portfolio managers don’t even bother.
Two days ago, I met with the leaders of a well-known Chamber of Commerce in a candid one-on-one and they identified the TRO as the aspect in our society that "turns off" foreign investment. No wonder even local Chinese-Filipinos go off to invest in China.
This headache, in fact, has been confirmed by seven foreign chambers of commerce in Metro Manila, writes retired Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Jesus Elbiñas in The Bulletin.
We’ve long been bemoaning the same thing in this corner, to no avail. Undeterred by admonitions and warnings from the Supreme Court, those rats in robes keep on churning out TROs and writs of preliminary injunction. Even commercial banks are now complaining about the issuance of TROs and injunctions to restrain the sale of foreclosed real estate.
The IBP, which is supposed to be composed of courageous and upright lawyers, has never dared come out with a position paper or resolution exposing and decrying the buy-and-sell in these cases, when TROs and injunctions are shamelessly peddled like fish in the market.
The IBP is no fledgling organization. It was created by law 28 years ago on January 16, 1975. And yet, for all its swagger, this association of the nation’s smartest lawyers has not discharged its public responsibility to fight to correct ills and instill honesty in the justice system. Lawyers, after all, are referred to constantly as "officers of the court."
Why the apathy and indifference? Or is it plain cowardice? I’m asking questions here, not drawing any conclusions.
Since September 1972, in an effort to signal a clean-up, the judiciary has been revamped thrice – twice by the late President Ferdinand Marcos and once in 1986 by ex-President Corazon C. Aquino. Despite these three revamps and the dismissal of certain crooked or incompetent members of the Bench by the Supreme Court, the knaves in the judiciary seem to be brazening it out, unfazed by such developments.
One viable solution is evidently the selection and appointment of better judges and justices. The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) was precisely established to ensure the proper vetting and screening of all candidates for the Bench. Has the IBP done its part in helping the JBC assess the credentials, track record and "reputation" of those applying for nomination? It’s not difficult to learn who the aspirants are. The names of applicants for vacant positions, particularly in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, are published in major dailies and newspapers of general circulation.
It’s true enough that the IBP is represented in the JBC with one Council member, but this lone IBP representative cannot "sleuth" all by himself, poking into the backgrounds of those vying for appointment. Fortunately, the vacuum is being filled by former Senate President Jovito Salonga’s and ex-Ambassador Sedfrey Ordonez’s Bantay Katarungan (Justice Watch) which has taken up the task and has shown concern over the quality of those applying for the appellate court and the High Tribunal.
When the IBP welshes on its responsibilities, others far more irresponsible step in. Over the past week, a number of self-righteous members of the so-called "civil society" groups – monitoring the plunder cases versus Estrada in the Sandiganbayan – have tried to preempt the Supreme Court vote on the Constitutionality of the Plunder Law. They have even been vilifying members of the High Tribunal whom they suspect might vote to declare invalid the statute on plunder. Has the IBP reacted to these insults and slurs cause-oriented groups have been circulating against the integrity of the members of the High Court? There’s been not a peep from the IBP to denounce this underhanded whispering campaign.
Are we witnessing once again the operation of the old and almost trite saying, that "discretion is the better part of valor"? Most IBP members and officers enjoying lucrative law practices probably hesitate to rub members of the Bench the wrong way, or make "enemies" of even undeserving candidates for the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. After all, for all their faults, those nominees might be appointed by Malacañang. And then where would these big time lawyers and their successful law firms be?
Indeed, courage and self-sacrifice are two commodities that seem to be in short supply.
It bothers me that DND Secretary Reyes made those trips at a strategically wrong time, but it bothers me even more that, to my surprise, DND Undersecretary Feliciano Gacis, the "Rudolph Valentino" of the Defense Department and Old Soldier who refuses to fade away, went to Paris and London, too. There Gacis was, slinking behind the "boss" every step of the way, when he had absolutely no reason to go along. Why? Is it because every item and document of proposal, procurement and contract has, for years, been compelled to go through Gacis’ hands?
To begin with, when the Defense Secretary travels, why should his senior Undersecretary also travel with him? Who’s minding the store here, back home? Secondly, Angie Reyes may be naive in these matters, but Gacis is a wily old veteran of the "contract" and "procurement" wars – and very buddy-buddy, mind you, with the officials of Thales (Thomson CSF) and their "agent" Randy Limjoco here. Now, there’s nothing wrong with "friendship", but it becomes problematical when a fellow like Gacis is the grise eminence in the inspection, review, and approval of contracts in the Defense Department and the Armed Forces.
Gacis, who belonged to Philippine Military Academy class 1954 must be 70 years old, or so. In this light, he should have been retired from government service long ago. Yet, he manages to hang on, charming his way into the good graces of four Defense Secretaries in a row, first Fidel V. Ramos, then Renato de Villa, next Orly Mercado, and now Angelo Reyes. What is the secret of this guy Gacis’ longevity? Viagra? I’m referring, you naughty minds, to his longevity in power and pelf.
In short, he has been "extended" ad nauseam.. The devil, the saying goes, is in the details. For a dozen years, entrenching himself more and more in the matrix of decision-making, Gacis has taken up himself the job of checking out every line, paragraph and detail of every document, proposal, project and contract. If that isn’t where power lies, where does it?
By taking on the seemingly tedious paperwork, he has ingratiated himself to every succeeding DND Secretary who has no time or inclination to read. I don’t say that he was the "bag man" of any one of them. But in our malicious and salacious society, suspicion will always persist. Particularly when the overstaying Undersecretary goes along on expeditions which include hobnobbing with bidders and multinatioinal suppliers on the champagne and caviar circuit.