Here comes the judge

First and foremost, I must commend Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes for standing by her oath and taking on this high-profile murder case which has caught the attention of the international community. In fact, human rights groups want to bring this landmark case before the International Court of Justice, believing it is a crime against humanity that is comparable to the genocides in Africa and the ethnic purges in Europe.

Judge Reyes has declined special protection for now, but hopefully, the best safeguard for her is the vigilance of the press and the public. We should not be “ningas cogon” on this one, which is why the media and the public should watch the whole process like a hawk until justice is served. 

A UST Law graduate, the 49-year-old judge has not handled any controversial case before, but those who know her say she is a no-nonsense judge who goes by the book and is noted for her strictness and punctuality. Before becoming a Quezon City Regional Trial Court Judge, Judge Reyes was a public attorney and a public prosecutor.

A lot of hope is riding on the shoulders of Judge Reyes, and with good reason. A lot of women judges have a good record in handling explosive cases, like our good friend Harriet Demetriou who convicted Calauan, Laguna mayor Antonio Sanchez of the rape and murder of Aileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez - calling the dastardly crime “a plot hatched in hell.”

We’re glad Chief Justice Puno defused the crisis brought about by the refusal of Judge Luisito Cortez — originally picked to handle the case — by swiftly ordering a new raffle and giving assurances for the security of the new judge. People however think it ironic that a male refused to handle the Ampatuan case for fear of his life. Anti-crime groups now want Judge Cortez disbarred, and DOJ Secretary Agnes Devanadera advised him to “look for another job.” Unfortunately for Judge Cortez, he was called a “coward” and all kinds of unflattering names. This is due to the deep disgust and outrage of the public over the murders, as shown during the first hearing at the DOJ where the livid crowd wanted to lynch Andal Ampatuan Jr.

On the other hand, the reaction of Cortez is perhaps based on the fact that his life is already threatened as it is since he escaped an ambush in Bulacan, and is also handling the murder trial of former Abra governor Vicsyd Valera who is accused of masterminding the assassination of Congressman Chito Bersamin, brother of SC Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin. Like Maguindanao, Abra is an election hot spot described as the “murder capital” of the North. When he found out his name was drawn in the raffle, the unlucky judge must have thought, “What? Me again?”

Unfortunately for judges in this country, they just have to accept the fact that security risks go with the territory. While people understand the apprehensions of Judge Cortez, refusing the case sends the wrong signal to potential witnesses who might also hesitate to testify due to fear for their lives. Cortez’s action could set a bad precedent for judges handling similar cases in the future — underscoring the flaws in our justice system which, as Chief Justice Puno himself admitted, needs a lot of improvement.

Because of these problems, it makes sense for us to adopt the US jury system where a group of individuals are closeted from public view as they review and deliberate on a case. This would lessen security risks for the judge because the concentration of the entire proceedings would not be dependent on him alone, since the members of the jury will decide whether an accused is guilty or not. Moreover, juries are also supposed to provide the necessary checks and balance against the power of the state.

In the US, Supreme Court nominees are subjected to background checks by the FBI. Nominees also go through a confirmation process in the Senate where they are grilled about their views and their past decisions. All information about the nominee is made public with the whole process seen on TV and online. These confirmation hearings can be explosive, like in the case of Clarence Thomas who was accused of sexually harassing a former subordinate. Thomas was eventually confirmed by a 52-48 vote, the narrowest margin ever in current US history.

In the Philippines, only the president has the right to appoint judges from regional trial courts all the way up to the justices of the Supreme Court. But this power should be tempered by making sure that the selection process is stringent, rigorous and most of all, transparent. Constitutional experts like Fr. Joaquin Bernas believe we should adopt the old system under the 1935 Constitution where judicial appointees are subjected to a confirmation process by the Commission on Appointments — which actually makes sense. If generals and Cabinet Secretaries need confirmation, why not justices upon whose hands lies the fate of a person?

It’s no secret that political appointees could be swayed by vested interests upon whom they are beholden. As such, they may not be as impartial in their rulings because they are already operating under certain constraints or biases. There is also concern among many that corrupt individuals could be appointed in the judiciary because of the lack of resources to conduct a thorough background check like they do in the US. Most of all, public hearings must be conducted because more than anything else, the most powerful position is that of the judge who literally holds the power to decide over the life — or death - of an individual.

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]