Whatever happened to Ma’m Arlene?

Last year, STAR columnist Jarius Bondoc broke a story about a “Ma’m Arlene “ who throws birthday parties for appellate court justices and trial court judges, and even allegedly financed their family trips abroad in exchange for cooperation in judicial cases.

It then seemed that there was a parallel web of corruption in the judiciary similar to the Napoles saga in the executive and legislative branches of government. The Supreme Court created a committee on October 17, 2013 to conduct a thorough investigation.

The committee that was created and tasked to investigate the Ma’m Arlene scandals in the judiciary said it would submit a preliminary report to the Supreme Court en banc within six months or earlier from the time it was created.

Unless my arithmetic is wrong, the six month period has lapsed and we should, therefore, be hearing the results of the investigation by now. May we, the public, therefore humbly ask the Supreme Court to share with us the findings of the investigative committee on the Ma’m Arlene case and the alleged web of corruption in the judiciary?

It is only through judicial reform, public transparency and integrity at the highest levels in the judiciary can there be any chance of institutionalizing the rule of law in the Philippines.

A serious proposal on judicial reform

Ever since I started writing about the need for reforms in the judiciary, I have received several comments from lawyers. There have been very few concrete proposals and each time there was a request for anonymity. However, this week I received concrete proposals from a lawyer brave enough to allow me to use his name.

His name is Atty. Norberto Ruiz. Let me quote the first and last paragraphs of his cover letter which he emailed together with his proposals:

“I have read your column Breakthrough in the Philippine Star last April 24, 2014 regarding a Case Study for Judicial Reform. I am a 77 year old lawyer. I am a retired Special Prosecutor iii in the Office of the Ombudsman. I am a proud former member of the Philippine Marines.

In his fourth and last paragraph, he wrote: “In the sunset of my life, I hope to see the return of the “golden days” of our judiciary when judges and justices were well respected and whose integrity is beyond dispute. I want to see judges and justices in the mold of Judge Rilloraza who convicted a very powerful Cabinet Secretary without fear or favour. Please find for your kind consideration my enclosed recommendation for judicial reform consisting of two parts.”

I am reprinting his first proposal here and will print the second part in a future column. I think his proposal is worth serious consideration.

“With the Napoles PDAF scandal, there is now a strong clamor for reform in the executive and legislative branches of our government but there can be no true and lasting reform in our government unless we also undertake a meaningful reform in our judiciary. For a true and lasting reform in the judiciary, I humbly recommend that we should amend the 1987 Constitution by removing from the Supreme Court (SC) the power of administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. The Supreme Court must focus on the exercise of its judicial power which has been defined as the right to determine actual controversies between adverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction.

 The precious time of the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court (SC) must be primarily and solely devoted to the exercise of judicial power and not to the administrative supervision of courts and the personnel thereof. The removal from SC of the power of administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof will restore the system of checks and balances in the judiciary, which is the bedrock of the present system of our government. Under the 1935 Constitution, the power of administrative supervision over all courts and personnel thereof is vested with the executive department. The golden days of the judiciary happened before the declaration of Martial Law under the 1935 Constitution’s set-up of our judiciary at the time when the judiciary did not have fiscal autonomy and the SC did not have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.

 During Martial Law or under 1973 Constitution, this power of administratitive supervision was transferred from the executive to SC to supposedly free judges from political interference and influence. This power of administrative supervision of the SC was carried over to the 1987 Constitution. However, under the present set-up, we are not sure if judges of the lower courts are free from the influence and interference of their superiors. It is quite revealing though that we have lost the golden days of the judiciary after the judiciary was given fiscal autonomy and the power of administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof was transferred from the executive to SC. This loss cannot be blamed on political interference and influence.

Under the 1935 Constitution, if there are errors or abuses in the exercise by the executive of the power of administrative supervision, the same can be checked and corrected by the Supreme Court. However, under the present set-up of our government, nobody can check and correct if the Supreme Court committed errors or abuses in the exercise of this power of administrative supervision, albeit the SC can check and correct the abuses of the legislative and executive departments.

 To institute the appropriate system of checks and balances, I therefore humbly recommend that we should establish an independent Philippine Judicial Commission (PJC) which shall have exclusive power of administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof, except the Supreme Court and its personnel. The PJC shall also have the sole power to select and nominate the appointments to the judiciary. And for this purpose, we have to abolish the Judicial Bar and Council (JBC) because after all, as commented by the eminent Constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin C. Bernas, S.J., “current experience [in the JBC], however, under new rule has not been a very happy one.”

The judges/justices appointed by the President from the list nominated by the PJC shall be subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointment like in the system provided under the 1935 Constitution. This will restore the system of checks and balances in the appointments to the judiciary. The set-up of PJC will be like the set up in COMELEC or the Civil Service Commission or COA where the members of PJC shall be appointed with a fixed term and without re-appointment and the members cannot be removed except by impeachment. Upon appropriate complaint or petition by the affected party, the action or conduct of PJC may be reviewed and corrected by the Supreme Court. “

I believe that the time has come for a serious dialogue on judicial reform.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]