Disturbing aberrations besetting the Bench - II

The more recent Bench news highlighted a lady magistrate's six-month suspension for "accepting bail, lying" which some in the local legal circle have deemed too harsh. The harshness appeared anchored on the ponente's findings that the respondent had been similarly sanctioned administratively for three previous cases. The good judge seemed taken aback by such decision

Perhaps the SC meted justice without a whiff of mercy over a procedural lapse, if so made. One believes that this involved an archived criminal case under the rule on summary procedure, requiring no bail and no warrant of arrest. As SOP, however, a bench warrant is issued and, when the accused be apprehended, the court releases him with no bail required.

The latest ala showbiz press exchange concerns two local RTC judges, one suspended for an "unjust judgment", the other taking over lady judge imputing the former of deciding three cases despite the suspension. The imputed magistrate reacted that he's not stupid and, all three cases were decided before the effectivity of his suspension. The point is, why professional colleagues couldn't see eye to eye within the bounds of judicial propriety and restraint?

With such corrosive kinks in the judiciary armor, so to speak, touching on both the rectitude and the rightfulness - the integrity and the legitimacy/preciseness - of behavior and the rulings, one hardly blames society's growing malaise and pessimism over the proverbial blindfolded justice.

To the everyday man, the nagging question often breaks the surface: Do we have the so-called cream of the crop holding the sensitive gavel? That, in essence, is the 64-dollar question. Never you mind the answers in mental multiple choice

As earlier stressed, dirty politics could be the culprit One remedy could be just a minor shift as regards original and promotional appointment, say, from the RTC down to the municipal court, let the SC chief justice be the appointing power on recommendation of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). To get the best minds, let there be prior written and oral exams, that is, in addition to comparative studies of the candidates' academic and BAR exam records, IQ standing, aptitude profile, training, experience, among others.

Do away with, or shorten the prior five-year learning experience on the practice of law.

That's stupidly passé.

It's funny that many private practitioners and public lawyers of non-judiciary positions, use political backing to transfer to the Bench for prestige and for retirement purposes. By then, the Your Honors may have become like the often-sleepy and doddering old dogs licking their past wounds, with neither eager ambition nor burning desire to excel.

Given the political-tainted realities, one is not taken aback by bench aspirers who don't think twice to enlist intercessions with nary any compunction, from the political powers that be. It has become a matter of course - no tinge of impropriety or twinge of "delicadeza" - for the wannabes to ingratiate themselves into the good graces of reigning politicos as "padrinos" to land the coveted Bench.

This could be so, because under the present set-up, even if one gets the top nod of the JBC among the three nominees to the Palace, nevertheless, he's bound to get by-passed if no powerful political backer boosts him. Or, no matter how many times the JBC nominates him for whatever vacancies for filling up, without a bigwig indorser, he ends kissing the dust.

Definitely though, there are more magistrates manning the Bench who are deserving the honors, than some who are inept, unscrupulous, and untrustworthy.

But then, in the likes of Shakespeare's "something is rotten in Denmark", there's a realistic truism that defies denial that a rotten mango may spoil the bunch of good ones in the same basket.