Contre-contempt

The rumblings ominously emanating from the academe over this plagiarism issue do not bode well for the Supreme Court.

Right after the highest court dismissed charges that its brethren, Justice Mariano del Castillo, had plagiarized the works of experts in international law, the court immediately sent notice to the esteemed faculty members of the UP College of Law, asking them to explain why they should not be held in contempt. (One of the professors posted a Facebook message saying that the notice he received bore the caption "Notice of Judgment," and we all know that a judgment usually comes only after the entirety of the process. A harbinger of things to come?)

The contempt notice was triggered by the fact that the good professors had called for the resignation of Justice del Castillo, and the Supreme Court apparently did not like the fact that these professors, including former deans of the law school as well as a retired justice himself, had voiced out their contrary opinions while the court was still deciding the issue.

I tried getting the advance scoop on what the good professors, my former colleagues in the faculty, were going to answer or how they would react to the summons, but no success. (There, full disclosure on my connection to the respondents - now you don't have to wonder why I keep saying the "good" professors. It's a subliminal attempt to gain sympathy.) That lack of information left me with no choice but to ruminate on the implications of this latest development for the court.

Our Supreme Court is given tremendous power over lawyers. If it feels like a lawyer's conduct deserves it, the Supreme Court can strip a lawyer's license to practice, essentially depriving him of his livelihood, and perhaps, his childhood dream (as well as the dreams of the parents who undoubtedly invested mega-bucks for his education and put up with four more years of college angst from their budding lawyer.) The court can also suspend a lawyer from practice, or fine him, depending on the gravity of his offense.

What is unique about this power to discipline lawyers is that there are virtually no standards against which the court must be held up to. The gravity of the punishment is pretty much left to the discretion of the court, and since it's the highest court of the land, there's nowhere else to go once the pronouncement has been made. If the Supreme Court wanted to discipline lawyers for not wearing pantyhose while on a date with their husbands, or for dyeing their hair acid-blond, it could do so, and there's not much anyone can do about it.

 But the Supreme Court never does that. It doesn't punish on the basis of superficial reasons like wearing tacky colored contact lenses or getting pink tattoos on navels. Its disciplinary powers are usually exercised sparingly, and carefully calibrated in accordance with the seriousness of the sin. We see the judicial muscles flexing when the behaviour of the lawyer is truly unethical, or when his conduct jeopardizes the integrity and reputation of the Supreme Court as an institution.

Sadly, to now explore the possibility of punishing the UP Law faculty for voicing out their stand seems to be doing more to damage its reputation, rather than if it had just left alone the existence of opinions contrary to its decision.

There's been a slew of press coverage whose slant hasn't been exactly favorable, and Solita Monsod, a national columnist, has gone as far as labelling the court as a bully in her column. Lawyers based abroad have been bandying adjectives that would make any hard-boiled practicing lawyer blush. Various deans of law schools, who previously kept quiet on the issue or in fact, sided with del Castillo, are now coming out and opposing the contempt proceedings. As a national daily headlines, they fear that this would create a 'chilling' effect, an atmosphere where lawyers can no longer critique decisions of the court.

Far be it for me to advise the high court on what it must do. Of course, it is an institution designed not to buckle under pressure. But more than anything, I wish it would, when it finally decides what it is to be done here, emerge a stronger institution.

* * *

Email: [email protected]