Benefit of the doubt

In a presidential system like ours, the Executive Department is undoubtedly endowed with more powers than Congress and the Judiciary. The framers of our Constitution perhaps saw the wisdom of this set-up in the light of the reality that this Department headed by the President is laden with tremendous and heavier responsibilities. In weighing the pros and cons of such a set up, the Charter framers presumed that the President chosen by the people through the electoral process will wield this tremendous power for and in behalf of the people.

Unfortunately, the framers did not foresee that the president may not really be chosen through the electoral process but by another people power revolution like what happened in 2001, and/or that the electoral process may be flawed like what happened in 2004. Apparently, this is the predicament of the present administration. Its legitimacy is still under a cloud of doubt. Thus its credibility ratings have always been in the negative. People simply lost trust and developed a very damaging, critical and skeptical attitude on just about any action or decision it makes.

The people’s lack of trust and confidence has more serious consequences when it comes to the President’s exercise of the power to appoint members of the Judiciary including the Supreme Court (SC) Justices. Doubts always linger about the independence of the appointee from the appointing power. Even if the President’s discretion is somewhat limited to those recommended by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), it is still possible that the JBC’s choices are the President’s preferences considering that the JBC members also owe their appointments to THE President.

The skepticism is enkindled even more in connection with the filling up of several vacancies in the SC this year because of the Cha-Cha issue that may eventually reach it. Speculations are rife that the President will appoint Justices who will go along with the theory of the Lower House allies of the President that a constituent assembly can be called without the concurrence of the Senate for as long as three-fourths of the members of House of Representatives or about 190 Congressmen vote for it.

Lost in all these skepticism and speculations are the real worth and the impressive and excellent qualifications of the appointees; like Justices Diosdado M. Peralta and Lucas F. Bersamin who were recently appointed as the 162nd and 163rd Justices of the SC to succeed retired Justices Ruben Reyes and Adolf Azcuna.

A closer look at the credentials and records of service of the two justices easily show that they are highly qualified for the position. They have a well rounded experience in the Bar, the Bench and the Academe both starting as private practitioners before entering the Judiciary. So noticeable in their career paths is that it seems to follow the same trajectory until they landed in the highest court of the land.

After finishing Law in 1979, Justice Peralta first had a stint in the corporate world then served in the Prosecution service from 1987 to 1994 before becoming a Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City in 1994. Justice Bersamin on the other hand became an RTC Judge of Quezon City in 1986 coming from private law practice. From RTC Judge, Justice Peralta became Sandiganbayan Justice in 2002 while Justice Bersamin became Justice of the Court of Appeals (CA) in 2003. Justice Peralta became Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice first on March 28, 2008 before being appointed Justice of the SC on January 14, 2009. Justice Bersamin on the other hand became SC Justice more than a month later in March 2009.

During their stint in the lower courts and the CA, they received numerous awards for outstanding service. Both also love teaching in Law schools and lecturing in seminars. My first person encounter with them was in the MCLE seminar I attended and I was impressed by their firm grasp of the subject. Then I also observed them up close and personal in the Sub Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court on Evidence where we served as members. And I became more impressed because of their deep and all encompassing knowledge of law and jurisprudence. Somehow I feel confident that they will always rule on the side of law and justice despite their supposed closeness to the appointing power. They have openly professed their independent-mindedness, so let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.    

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]