EDITORIAL - One of a kind

Court of Appeals associate justice Gabriel Ingles is a highly-credible and well-respected member of the judiciary. He is also a man of fine character and great humility, traits one seldom finds in people occupying high positions.

But just as it did not come as a surprise for Ingles to be nominated for the position of chief justice, so did it not come as a surprise either that he should decline that nomination. It is just the way the man is.

Ingles gave these reasons for declining — that there are nominees better qualified for the position, and that he felt it improper for him and unfair to the institution to show interest in the position, especially after having publicly been in favor of Renato Corona’s impeachment.

Be that as it may, perhaps it is just as well that Ingles has declined the nomination. It would have been very unseemly of him to be in the same company of other nominees who have openly and so wantonly coveted the position.

In fact, it would not be too far off to consider the process of nomination as now having degenerated into a farce. It does not speak well of the process, for instance, to have a nurse as nominee for chief justice.

Just because it is the desire of everyone to have the process as open and as transparent as possible does not mean breaking down the safeguards that ensure its integrity and credibility. Openness and transparency are not synonymous with anything goes.

But that is precisely where the process appears to be headed. What, for instance, will a live media coverage contribute to openness and transparency other than plain view? There is more to the meaning of openness and transparency than just the ability to observe the process.

We would like to believe that openness and transparency means the ability of the process to select the best and most-qualified for the position and not merely provide yet another reality TV episode.