Law and Justice are the main ingredients of a strong and stable nation. And the ultimate interpreter of the law and dispenser of justice in almost all democratic countries is the SC. It is the SC that has the final say in the exercise of judicial power or the power to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction even on the part of the other branch or instrumentality of the government. It has administrative supervision over all other court of justice and the personnel thereof comprising the third independent branch of government co-equal with the legislative and the executive branch. The opportunity to have a part in the exercise of such awesome power and tremendous responsibility with utmost significance and impact on the life of a nation is therefore enough incentive for every lawyer to aspire for such a high and noble position as SC Justice.
But the mother of all dreams in the legal profession, the Mount Everest that every lawyer would like to climb is that of becoming SC Chief Justice. According to the Constitution, the SC Justices and their Chief should at least be 40 years old and must have been for fifteen years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines (Section 7[1]) Article VIII). Yet it cannot be denied that the Chief Justice is the primus inter pares among them. The philosophies, policies and thinking of the Chief Justice somehow influence the course of action of the SC during his or her tenure. Hence the SC is usually denominated and identified with the name of the serving Chief Justice. So we have in the recent past, the Davide Court, the Narvasa Court, the Fernan Court, the Teehankee Court etc. The SC is usually remembered and identified in history (pleasantly or unpleasantly) for the landmark and important decisions rendered by it through the serving Chief Justice at that time. The reputation of the Court itself largely depends on the reputation of the Chief Justice and his judicial philosophies. Other justices may have written the decisions as ponentes but generally the SC becomes known and is associated with the sitting Chief Justice.
Hence it is very important that the Chief Justice should have good working relations with the Associate Justices for a considerable period so that he/she could easily and smoothly convey and convince them of his/her thinking on particular issues confronting the Court and vice versa. For this to happen, the prospective Chief Justice must have at least served as Associate Justice of the Court. Preferably and by tradition the most Senior Associate Justice should be appointed as the next Chief Justice.
However, deep selection from within the ranks is not constitutionally prohibited and that the President who is the appointing power can choose from the list of three qualified nominees prepared and submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). In fact, incumbent Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban is not the most Senior Associate Justice when he was appointed. But at least, he has been with the SC as Associate Justice for more than ten years and was the next most Senior Associate Justice at the time of his appointment. If I am not mistaken, he was the most senior in terms of age and experience at the time of his appointment. And as it is now turning out his choice was one of the better moves of the President as he steered the SC during these turbulent times towards the rule of law and civil liberties. Indeed during his short stint of one year as Chief Justice, the SC has acquired the reputation of being the Court of "liberty and prosperity".
But choosing a qualified nominee who has not yet served as an SC Associate Justice is an entirely different matter. Even if it is not constitutionally prohibited, it is usually a wrong and ill advised move. In SC’s history only once has this happened without any controversy to my recollection. The appointee’s qualification, experience, competence, integrity and independence were really outstanding and exceptional that he was chosen without even aspiring for the position. Indeed the other Justices at the time welcomed his appointment as their Chief.
The present case of a Senator "applying" for the position does not conform at all to that precedent. She is not being offered the position but is applying for it. When the position is actively sought, her independence from the appointing power is immediately jeopardized. No amount of protestation will erase the fact that she owes a debt of gratitude to the appointing power for granting her application. Independence is assured more by adhering to the tradition of appointing the most senior Associate Justice as the next Chief Justice. In such case, it could be said that the appointment is not sought and is based more on the merits of the appointee’s qualifications than on his closeness with the appointing power.
E-mail us at jcson@pldtdsl.net or jose@sisonph.com