Justiciable Controversy

What Miriam Defensor Santiago must have felt like.

Imagine - choosing her power outfit of the day, some nice little number that says 'I'm a Senator, a co-equal with the perfect right to address her colleagues in the judiciary,' but nothing too fancy, nothing that would make her look like an overdressed tart that was all glitz, no brains. Of course, nothing that would make it seem she desperately wants the post of Chief Justice.

Of course, she can't really deny she wants the post - otherwise, why come to the first-ever public hearing of the Judicial and Bar Council, the powerful committee with the power to nominate to the president the appointee to the most prestigious post in the legal world - Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? This, the one and only time when the usually secret deliberations were to be held in the eyes of the public, in the effort to make the judiciary more transparent, and hence, more accountable?

Which is why she must have felt crushed when none of the other potential nominees invited to the hearing, all already august members of the Supreme Court, decided to accept. In other words, all of them snubbed it, sending letters of regret ahead, deciding instead to let their previous decisions speak for them.

What other thing could she do then, but to likewise decline to continue? I mean, none of her competitors wanted to let it appear they wanted to compete, so why compete? The footing was uneven, and she had to redress that imbalance by backpedaling. (Not that it helped when she announced that she didn't want to get an unfair advantage by being interviewed, when it was obvious all of her competitors, led by my former professor in Tax, Justice Antonio Carpio, had somehow gotten the upper hand by retreating to the lofty peak of "It's beyond me to even be there.")

That ticked off my former classmate in Torts, Senator Francis Pangilinan, a member of the JBC, who said he was going to move to disqualify all the Justices who didn't show up. Not that I think his motion's going to be carried, because that would leave the JBC only two options: the long shot, outsider Senator Santiago, or the more junior members in the Court, which would set bad precedent.

Of course, I think Francis' motives are good in wanting transparency in this, the nomination process. Transparency is a chance to educate the citizens on their leaders, get us to know who they are and what they stand for. It might, of course, also be a chance for people who know deep dark secrets to come out and denounce the nominees - better to know who the ticking time bombs are before the fuse gets lit, don't you think?

On the other hand, I can also sympathize with the sheltered and ultra-privileged Justices, who will now get brutally exposed to the circus of a public hearing. After perhaps a decade of being beyond rebuke, of being treated like omniscient gods, here they now are facing questions galore from impertinent outsiders. And, horrors, from those over whom they have no power of contempt!

What to do, what to do?

During the first year of law school, all my professors kept on mouthing the phrase the "rule of law" like it was a god. I never really knew what that phrase meant, until we were asked to figure out, for example, what makes a policeman obey the arrest warrant of a judge when issued against a mayor, or what gives a judge the power to order a military officer to produce a body.

Then you slowly figure out - it's all about the respect the judicial institution commands, something indefinable that automatically, and very surprisingly, moves people to obey without question. This is the very same institution that we now seek to place under a microscope.

The Supreme Court is an institution that we've built up over the centuries. Much of its prestige and glamour might merely be the collective accumulation of previous brilliance and intellect, resulting in respect that the present occupants don't necessarily deserve, but still, tinkering with this institution, with the end-goal of improvement, has to be done with extreme delicacy.

Otherwise, we might unknowingly weaken its foundations, and end up with a toothless body that will inspire not faith, but distrust, and not reverence, but contempt.